FT MEADE 

















Under the Ban 



H Gorrespon&ence 

BETWEEN 

DR. ST. GEORGE MIVART 

AND 

HERBERT CARDINAL VAUGHAN 

Archbishop of Westminster 



Two Articles by Di. Mivart 

ON 

ome Recent Catholic Apologists ” and “The Continuity 
of Catholicism/’ 


Office of publication: 

Rooms 2128-29-30-31, Park Row Building 













» 


















• p 


« • 


» a 


• • • 
* * • a 


• • 


0 f • • • 


m m • • • 

a • * 


• • p • 


III 


*• « t * ••: ••: 
♦ • • • • 
• . « « • f W 




• • • 


•t* 


• ♦ • 

• • • • 


• • 


% 

* 


u 

4 




• • » 
% * 


4 

a 


t* 


p 


f 





X 










UNDER THE BAN * 1 


77, Inverness Terrace, W., January 6, 1900. 

My Dear Lord Cardinal: 

Although I believe the “ Tablet ” belongs to your eminence, 
I am fully persuaded that you could not have known and ap¬ 
proved of the monstrous article on me which appears therein. 

I should not think of complaining of any criticism of 
opinions referred to by me, however hostile; but, when I am 
personally abused as a liar, a calumniator, and a coward, I 
feel I have cause to complain. I have never before been ac¬ 
cused of cowardice in making my views known, but rather of 
too much boldness and presumption. 

The article will surely shock all .earnest Christians, for it 
sins deeply against that greatest of Christian virtues—charity. 
Its author represents me as falsely citing anonymous witnesses. 

1 Dr. St. George Mivart, long conspicuous both in science and in the Catho¬ 
lic church, published in the January (1900) issues of the " Nineteenth Cen¬ 
tury ” and the " Fortnightly Review” two articles which made him the subject 
of sharp personal criticism at the hands of the " Tablet,” an English organ of 
Catholicism. This criticism caused him to write a letter of protest to Cardinal 
Vaughan, and this letter in turn led to an extended correspondence between 
the theologian and the scientist. In the course of this correspondence the 
cardinal called on Dr. Mivart to sign a Catholic profession of faith. Dr. 
Mivart refusing, the cardinal sent a letter to the Roman Catholic clergy of the 
diocese of Westminster, forbidding them to administer the sacraments to the 
offender. This book gives the correspondence, the confession of faith, and 
the notice of inhibition, as well as the two articles by Dr. Mivart which led up 
to these. 


3 





I give you my honor I do not refer to one save with complete 
truthfulness. 

As to the points he specially refers to, the persons I cite are 
well known to your eminence. As to the birth of our Lorf' 
did not merely hear, but had written evidence, a verbatinj 
copy of which is now in my library. As to the resurrection, 
my informant was almost as much known to your eminence as 
Bishop Brindle. He did not bind me to secrecy, and, if your 
eminence cares to know who he was, and will keep his name 
a secret, I will mention it. 

The articles were written by me under a sense of duty, 
thinking death not far off, and (like my antecedent ones) with 
a view of opening as widely as possible the gates of Catho¬ 
licity; the “ Fortnightly ” one to make conformity as easy as 
might be, the “ Nineteenth Century ” one to point out 
changes tending to facilitate that conformity—changes the ex¬ 
istence and importance of many of which it is absolutely im¬ 
possible to deny. My aim may have been Quixotic, my 
measures unwisely selected; but, whatever criticism I may 
merit, I am sure that scurrilous personalities can never be 
approved by your eminence. 

With unchanged sentiments of regard, 

I remain as respectfully as affectionately yours, 

St. George Mivart. 


Archbishop’s House, Westminster, S. W., January 9, 1900. 
Dear Dr. Mivart: 

I have received your letter, in which you complain of com¬ 
ments made upon your conduct by one of the Catholic papers, 
while you assure me that the articles in the “ Nineteenth Cen- 




tury ” and the “ Fortnightly Review ” were written by you 
“ under a sense of duty, thinking death not far off.” 

Before touching on these points, it is necessary to be clear 
as to the substance of your position. 

You have publicly impugned the most sacred and funda¬ 
mental doctrines of the faith, while still pro*' sing yourself 
to be a Catholic. It becomes, therefore, my primary duty, 
as guardian of the faith, to ascertain whether I am still to 
treat you as a member of the church and subject to my juris¬ 
diction, or to consider you outside the unity of the faith. 

As a test of orthodoxy regarding certain doctrines dealt 
with by you in your articles in the “ Nineteenth Century,” I 
herewith send you a profession of Catholic faith. I invite 
you to read and return it to me subscribed by your signature. 
Nothing less than this will be satisfactory. I need not say 
how deeply I regret the necessity which compels me to take 
official action of this kind, and how earnestly I hope and pray 
that you may have light and grace to withdraw from the posi¬ 
tion in which you stand, and to submit yourself unreservedly to 
the authority of the Catholic church. 

Believe me to be, yours faithfully, 

Herbert Card. Vaughan, 

Archbishop of Westminster. 

The profession of faith which Dr. Mivart was called upon to sign ran as 
follows : 

Formula. 

I hereby declare that, recognizing the Catholic church to be 
the supreme and infallible guardian of the Christian faith, I 
submit therein my judgment to hers, believing all that she 
teaches, and condemning all that she condemns. And in 
particular I firmly believe and profess that Our Lord Jesus 


6 




Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before 
all ages, in the fulness of time, for us men and for our salva¬ 
tion, came down from heaven and was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary—that is to say, that the 
same Jesus Christ had no man for His father, and that St. 
Joseph was not His real or natural father, but-only His re¬ 
puted, or foster, father. 

I therefore firmly believe and profess that the Blessed Vir¬ 
gin Mary conceived and brought forth the Son of God in an 
ineffable manner by the operation of the Holy Ghost, and 
absolutely without loss or detriment to her virginity, and that 
she is really and in truth, as the Catholic church most rightly 
calls her, the “ Ever Virgin ” ; that is to say, virgin before 
the birth of Christ, virgin in that birth, and virgin after it, 
her sacred and spotless virginity being perpetually preserved 
from the beginning, then, and for ever afterwards. 

I therefore condemn and reject as false and heretical the 
assertion that doubt or denial of the virgin birth of Christ or 
the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mary, mother of God, 
is—or at any future time ever can be in any sense whatever— 
consistent with the Holy Catholic faith. ( Cf . Nicene and 
Apostles’ Creed and Constitution of Paul IV., “ Cum Quorun- 
dam, ” and Clement VIII., **■ Dominici Gregis.”) 

I believe and profess that Our Lord Jesus Christ, after His 
death and burial, rose again from the dead, and that His body 
glorified in His resurrection is the same as that in which He 
suffered and died for us upon the cross. I reject and con¬ 
demn the statement that the body of Christ rotted in the grave 
or suffered corruption as false and heretical, and contrary to 
the Holy Catholic faith now and in all future time. 

I firmly believe and profess, in accordance with the Holy 
Council of Trent, that the first man, Adam, when he trans- 


7 


gressed the command of God in Paradise, immediately lost 
the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and 
that he incurred through that prevarication the wrath and in¬ 
dignation of God, and that this prevarication of Adam in¬ 
jured, not himself alone, but his posterity, and that by it the 
holiness and justice received from God were lost by him, not 
for himself alone, but for us all. ( Cf . Council of Trent, Ses¬ 

sion Y.) 

I firmly believe and profess that our Lord died upon the 
cross, not merely (as Socinus held) to set us an example or an 
44 object lesson ” of fidelity unto death, but that He might 
give Himself 44 a redemption for all ” by 44 bearing our sins 
in His body upon the tree,”—that is, by making a true and 
full satisfaction to the offended justice of God for the sins 
original and actual of all men, and that these sins are taken 
away by no other remedy than the merit of the 44 one medi¬ 
ator, our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 5), who has reconciled 
us to God in His own blood; 44 made unto us justice, sanctifica¬ 
tion, and redemption” (1 Cor. i. 30. Cf. Council of Trent, 
Session Y.) 

I reject and condemn all doctrines which deny the reality 
and transmission of original sin, and the perfect sufficiency of 
the atonement by which man is reconciled to God in the blood 
of Jesus Christ, as false and heretical, and contrary to the 
Holy Catholic faith now and at all future time. 

I firmly believe and profess that the souls of men after death 
will be judged by God, and that those who are saved will 
44 go into everlasting life ” (Matt. xxv. 46), and those who 
are condemned 44 into everlasting punishment.” I reject as 
false and heretical all doctrines which teach that the souls in 
hell may eventually be saved, or that their state in hell may 
be one which is not of punishment. ( Cf. Constitution of 
Council of Lateran IY.) 


8 


In accordance with the Holy Councils of Trent and of the 
Vatican, I receive all the books of the Old and New Testament 
with all their parts as set forth in the fourth session of the 
Council of Trent, and contained in the ancient Latin edition of 
the Vulgate, as sacred and canonical, and I firmly believe and 
profess that the said Scriptures are sacred and canonical—not 
because, having been carefully composed by mere human in¬ 
dustry, they were afterwards approved by the Church’s 
authority, nor merely because they contain revelation with no 
admixture of error; but because, having been written by the 
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author 
and have been delivered as such to the church herself. 
Wherefore, in all matters of faith or morals appertaining to 
the building up of Christian doctrine, I believe that to be the 
true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother the 
church has held and now holds, to whom the judgment of the 
true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture belongs. ( Cf . 

Council of Trent, Session IV.; Council of the Vatican, Dog¬ 
matic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, chap. ii., can. ii.) 

I firmly believe and profess that the doctrine of faith which 
God has revealed has not been proposed like a philosophical 
invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been 
delivered as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be 
faithfully kept and infallibly declared, and that therefore 
that meaning of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually re¬ 
tained which our Holy Mother the church has once declared, 
and that that meaning can never be departed from, under the 
pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them. I re¬ 
ject as false and heretical the assertion that it is possible at 
some time, according to the progress of science, to give to 
doctrines propounded by the church a sense different from that 
which the church has understood and understands, and con- 


9 


sequently that the sense and meaning of her doctrines can 
ever^be in the course of time practically explained away or 
reversed. [Cf. Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican on 
Catholic Faith, chap, iv., can. iv.) 

Moreover, I condemn *and revoke all other words and state¬ 
ments which in articles contributed by me to the “ Fort¬ 
nightly Review ” and the “ Nineteenth Century,” or in any 
other of my writings, are found to be, in matter of faith or 
morals, contrary to the teaching of the Holy Catholic Faith 
according to the determination of the apostolic see; and in all 
such matters I submit myself to the judgment of the said see, 
receiving all that it receives and condemning all that it con- - 
demns. 


January 11, 1900. 

Dear Lord Cardinal: 

I have received your eminence’s letter, enclosing a docu¬ 
ment you invite me to sign and return. Before I can do that, 
however, there is a previous question; as “ grace supposes 
nature,” so, before I am a Catholic, I am an English gentle¬ 
man, and in that capacity I have been grossly outraged. 

Granting, for argument’s sake, I have impugned certain 
doctrines (which I deny), that gives no man the right to as¬ 
sault or insult me at his pleasure. 

The foul, vulgar, and brutal personalities of the “ Tablet,” 
charging me with cowardice and wilful, calumnious mendacity, 
are such that no man with a particle of self-respect could 
tolerate. 

Before anything, therefore, I must ask for reparation, and 
I ask it of your eminence, not as a cardinal or a priest, or 
even as a Christian, but simply in your character of a distin¬ 
guished English gentleman, desiring to act rightly and with the 



10 


courtesy befitting that character. I ask, then, for reparation 
in one of the following modes: 

(1) A letter from yourself reprobating, and expressing your 
regret for, the abusive utterances of your journal in my re¬ 
gard; or 

(2) The publication in the “ Tablet ” of a complete with¬ 
drawal and full apology for its imputations against my cour¬ 
age, veracity, and straightforwardness; or 

(3) A letter from the writer of the article withdrawing his 
charges against me as a man, and begging my pardon. 

I note with surprise that, in the letters I have received, 
your eminence does not appear to recognize your responsibility 
for the utterances of your journal, the “ Tablet.” 

For my part, I, of course, fully recognize and respect your 
eminence’s ecclesiastical position, with its rights and duties; 
but I recognize the right of no man to insult me (himself or 
through his subordinates), by personal imputations which re¬ 
late, not to matters of belief, but to my natural qualities and 
characteristics. 

Believe me, yours faithfully, 

St. G. Mivart. 


Archbishop’s House, Westminster, S. W., January 12, 1900. 
Dear Dr. Mivart: 

I have received your note of yesterday’s date. I have only 
two things to say in reply to it. 

First, if you have any personal correction to make in the 
criticism of your article by the “ Tablet,” you are free, like 
any other author whose publication is under review, to address 
yourself to the editor. 

I know not by what privilege or usage you address yourself 
to me instead. Kindly go to the proper quarter. 



11 


Secondly, my own duty towards the church, and your asser¬ 
tion, while professing yourself to be a member thereof, that 
good and devoted Catholics hold certain blasphemous and 
heretical doctrines, and that these doctrines may become some 
day generally held within the church, are matters of too great 
an import to allow of their being put aside by references to 
journalistic criticism or to any other side issues. 

Your assertion is equivalent to saying that a person may be 
actually a Catholic and yet a disbeliever in the incarnation 
and the resurrection, and that the church herself may change 
her belief in these doctrines. , 

A mere disclaimer of personally holding such heresies in 
general, and a mere general profession of adherence to 
Catholicity, such as is contained in your letter to the 
“ Times ” of to-day, is not sufficient to repair the scandal or 
to acquit you of complicity in the promotion of such heresies. 

You tell me that your object has been “ to open as widely 
as possible the gates of Catholicity ” and “ to make con¬ 
formity as easy as might be.” 

This renders it all the more necessary that I should ask 
you to sign the formula of Catholic faith which I sent to you 
on Tuesday. As you are aware, no one can reject the pro¬ 
fession of faith contained therein and still be a member of the 
Catholic church. I ask you, therefore, to sign, having re¬ 
gard to your own honor and position as a Catholic as well as 
to the interest of souls committed to my care. 

Believe me to be, your faithful and devoted servant, 

Herbert Card. Vaughan, 
Archbishop of Westminster. 


12 


January 14, 1900. 

Dear Lord Cardinal: 

I thank your eminence for your letter of January 12. In 
reply, permit me to say I claim no “ privilege,” save that of 
old and valued friendship, in addressing you directly with re¬ 
spect to the “ Tablet’s ” insults. It would be useless for me 
to address my friend, Mr. Snead Cox. He must, of course, 
give insertion to whatever is authoritatively sent him from 
“Archbishop’s House,” and would do the same were it an 
apology. I make no objection to criticism of my writings; 
what I object to is the imputation to me of defects as to 
ordinary courage and honesty. 

I repeat that my appeal is to your eminence both as propri¬ 
etor of the “ Tablet ” and as a gentleman as regards family 
and sentiment. I so appeal because (since “ qui facit per alium 
facit per se”) you have, through your subordinates, imputed 
to me calumnious mendacity and cowardice. I must confess 
myself amazed and somewhat scandalized that your eminence 
does not seem anxious at once to step forward and do me right 
(in a small matter so easily effected) as a matter of ordinary 
ethics, quite apart from religion. If the latter is to be 
brought into account, has not your eminence (of course, un¬ 
wittingly) broken the commandment—“ Thou shalt not bear 
false witness against thy neighbor ” ? 

Reluctantly, and with the greatest respect, I feel then com¬ 
pelled once more to demand an apology in one of the three 
modes pointed out in my last letter,—namely, (1) a letter 
from your eminence; (2) an apology for and withdrawal of 
personal imputations in the next issue of the “ Tablet,” or 
(3) a letter from the writer of the article, asking my pardon 
and withdrawing his insults. 


13 


Before receiving such apology, I can do nothing more in 
this matter, anxious as I am to meet your eminence’s wishes to 
the full extent of my power. I ask you, then, to kindly re¬ 
move the cause which paralyzes me. What would be the good 
of my signing anything, if I am to remain branded by your 
organ, and therefore by your eminence, as a coward and a 
liar? Evidently it would be said that I have signed insin¬ 
cerely and through fear! But, if I am astonished at the seem¬ 
ing want of ethical perception as to the moral necessity for 
undoing a personal wrong, I am, if possible, still more 
amazed to find that your eminence can never have read the 
articles you condemn. How otherwise could you write as you 
do about the doctrines of the incarnation and resurrection? I 
have not written one word about the latter doctrine, or about 
the fact of the resurrection; I have only put forward a notion 
(propounded to me by the best theologian I ever knew) respect¬ 
ing its mode and nature. 

To .the doctrine of the incarnation I have not referred, even 
in the most distant manner. 

As a theologian, your eminence of course knows, far better 
than I do, that God could have become incarnate as perfectly 
in a normal human embryo as in an abnormal one. 

Indeed, I think some scholastics have (amongst their 
various subtleties) taught that God, did He so will, could be¬ 
come incarnate in a mere animal or in an onion. For my part 
I do not see now it is possible for the human intellect to set 
bounds to the possibilities of the absoluta potestas of the Al¬ 
mighty with respect to matters so utterly inconceivable. The 
things which have been written about my articles really re¬ 
mind me of the attack made by Kingsley on Cardinal 
Newman. 

As to much I am saddled with, I can say truly, as Newman 


14 


did, “ I never said it.” If your eminence could only spare 
time to read my articles carefully, you would see that I have 
scrupulously abstained from putting forward my own unim¬ 
portant notions, and have strictly confined myself to making 
statements as to matters of fact which I believe to be 
incontrovertible. 

I remain, dear Lord Cardinal, your eminence’s most 
faithful and devoted servant, 

St. G. Mivart. 


Archbishop’s House, Westminster, S. W., January 16, 1900. 
Dear Dr. Mivart: 

I regret that I must call upon you a third and last time to 
forward to me, with your signature attached thereto, the form 
of profession of faith, which, as your bishop, I felt bound to 
send to you in consequence of the articles published by you in 
the “ Nineteenth Century ” and ” Fortnightly Review.” _ And 
at the same time I require you to express your reprobation of 
those articles, and your sincere sorrow for having published 
them. 

I cannot allow you to evade this duty on the ground of any¬ 
thing that may have been written in the “ Tablet.” If you 
have a grievance against the “ Tablet,” you must go to the 
editor. I am responsible neither for its language nor its 
arguments. 

My dealing with you is exclusively as your ordinary and as 
guardian of the faith of my flock. 

Failing dutiful submission on your part, the law of the 
church will take its course. 

Believe me, your faithful and devoted servant, 

Herbert Card. Vaughan, 
Archbishop of Westminster. 



15 


January 19, 1900. 

Dear Lord Cardinal: 

I regret that illness has, till now, hindered my replying to 
your eminence’s last letter. 

Therein you say you are “ dealing ” with me “ exclu¬ 
sively ” as my “ ordinary.” It is also in that character only 
that I write to you to-day, putting aside for the moment the 
question of apology which I cannot doubt your sense of right 
will be sure, in some form, to secure for me. The fact is, I 
am exceedingly anxious to meet your eminence’s wishes, and 
to give all the satisfaction I can to my Catholic friends. I 
remain attached to Catholicity and its rites, at which, happen 
what may, I shall not cease to assist, for I consider divine 
worship (in the words of my friend Dr. Gasquet) “ the highest 
privilege of a rational nature.” To your eminence, then, as 
my ordinary, I confidently appeal to help me out of a diffi¬ 
culty and to resolve a point of conscience which troubles me. 

When I was admitted as a Catholic, I made, of course, a 
profession of the creed of Pope Pius IV. But I have no 
recollection of ever having made, or been asked to make, the 
following profession, which forms part of the document I am 
now asked to sign: 

In accordance with the Holy Councils of Trent and of the 
Vatican, I receive all the books of the Old and New Testament 
with all their parts as set forth in the fourth section of the 
Council of Trent and contained in the ancient Latin edition of 
the Vulgate, as sacred and canonical, and I firmly believe and 
confess that the said Scriptures are sacred and canonical— 
not because, having been carefully composed by mere human 
industry, they are afterwards approved by the church’s author¬ 
ity, not merely because they contain revelation with no mix¬ 
ture of error, but because, having been written by the inspira¬ 
tion of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and 
have been delivered as such to the church herself. 


16 


Now, I beg of your eminence, as my ecclesiastical superior, 
to tell me whether I am, or not, right as to what would be the 
consequences of my signing the above ? 

It would be easy, of course, by a little dexterity, to distort 
and evade what appears to be its real and obvious meaning. 

As God is the first cause and creator of all things, he is, in 
that sense, their author. Author of the “ Decameron” of 
Boccaccio, as well as of the Bible. But to make a profession 
with such a meaning would be, in my eyes, grossly profane 
and altogether unjustifiable 

Your eminence, of course, means and wishes me to sign ex 
animo the document sent to me, and I, for my part, desire to 
be perfectly—transparently—honest, candid, and straight¬ 
forward. 

Now, in my judgment, an acceptance and profession of the 
above cited portion of the document sent me would be equiva¬ 
lent to an assertion that there are no errors, or altogether false 
statements, or fabulous narratives, in the Old and New Testa¬ 
ment, and that I should not be free to hold and teach, without 
blame, that the world was not created in any six periods of 
time; that the story of the serpent and the tree is altogether 
false; that the history of the tower of Babel is a mere fiction 
devoid of any particle of truth; that the story of Noah’s Ark 
is also quite erroneous, as again that of the plagues of Egypt; 
that neither Joshua nor Hezekiah interfered with the regu¬ 
larity of solar time; that Jonah did not live within the belly 
of any kind of marine animal; that Lot’s wife was never 
turned into a pillar of salt ; and that Balaam’s ass never 
spoke. I only put these forward as a few examples of state¬ 
ments (denials) which it seems to me any one who holds that 
“ the books of the Old and New Testament, with all their 
parts, were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and 


17 


have God for their author ” oiight not and could not logically 
or rationally make. 

If, however, your eminence can authoritatively tell me that 
divine inspiration or authorship does not (clerical errors, 
faults of translation, etc., apart) guarantee the truth and 
inerrancy of the statements so inspired, it will in one sense be 
a great relief to my mind, and greatly facilitate the signing 
of the document, your eminence's decision on the subject being 
once publicly known, and also the conditions under which I 
sign it. 

I therefore most earnestly adjure and entreat your eminence 
to afford me all the spiritual help and enlightenment you can; 
for the question I now ask is my one great trouble and diffi¬ 
culty. I cannot and will not be false to science any more than 
to religion. 

If only your eminence can tell me I have judged wrongly, 
and that I shall be held free and deemed blameless for denying 
the truth of statements whereof the Council of Vatican has de¬ 
clared God to be the author, it will afford my conscience great 
and much-needed relief. 

I trust I may receive an answer on Tuesday next at the 
latest. I feel it is possible, however, that, as your eminence 
has so far declined to apologize, you may not accord me the 
authoritative answer to the question I so earnestly address to 
you as my ordinary. In that case I shall (according to 
custom) take silence to mean consent, and deem you think me 
right and agree with me in judging that no one who accepts 
the decrees of Trent and the Vatican (and Leo XIII.) about 
Scripture is free to proclaim the entire falsehood of any of its 
statements or professed histories. 

I have the honor to remain, dear Lord Cardinal, your 
eminence’s most obedient and devoted servant, 

St. George Mivart. 


18 


Archbishop’s House, Westminster, S. W., January 21, 1900. 
Dear Dr. Mivart: 

I am sorry to hear that you have been ill, and sincerely 
hope that you are recovering. In reply to your letter of the 
19th, let me, first of all, urge you to place your feet down 
upon the firm and fundamental principle which is the ground 
on which every true Catholic stands,— viz., that the church, 
being the divine teacher established by Christ in the world, 
rightly claims from her disciples a hearty and intellectual 
acceptance of all that she authoritatively teaches. This prin 
ciple, given us by Our Lord, will carry you safely over all 
objections and difficulties that may spring up along your path. 
It was applied by St. Augustine to his acceptance of the Scrip 
tures, where he says: Ego vero Evangelio non crederem , nisi me 
Catholics? Ecclesix commoveret auctoritas. 

But, if you are going to give the assent of faith only to 
such doctrines as present no difficulties beyond the power of 
your finite intelligence to see through and solve by direct 
answer, you must put aside at once all the mysteries of faith, 
and you must frankly own yourself to be a rationalist pure 
and simple. You then constitute your own ability to solve 
difficulties, intellectual or scientific, into your test of the doc¬ 
trines proffered for your acceptance. 

This is to return to the old Protestant system of private 
judgment, or to open rationalism and unbelief. 

But you will let me, I hope, be frank, and urge that it is 
your moral, rather than your intellectual, nature that needs 
attention. God gives this grace to the humble; it is “ the 
clean of heart ” who “ shall see God.” Let me press upon 
you the primary necessity of humility and persevering prayer 
for light and grace. 


19 


Having said this much in general, I now refer more directly 
to your questions as to Holy Scripture. For an authorita¬ 
tive recent statement, see Leo XIII.’s Encyclical on Holy 
Scripture. 

I would also recommend you to study Franzelin’s/ Treatise 
de S. Scriptura, Hummelauer’s Commentaries, and his ac¬ 
count of the creation. See III. Yol. of Biblische Studien, 
1898, Friburg in Brisgau, or his “ Recit de la Creation.” 

But, perhaps, more useful to you than this would be a con¬ 
versation with Rev. Dr. Clarke or with F. Tyrrell, S.J., both 
of whom would be able to understand your state of mind and 
to give you counsel and assistance. I refer you to them. 

Believe me to be your faithful and devoted servant, 

Herbert Card. Vaughan, 
Archbishop of Westminster. 


January 23. 

Dear Lord Cardinal: 

I thank you. I rejoice to say I am better. My “ ordi¬ 
nary ” has indeed acted promptly in the character of an 
authoritative prelate, and hardly with the patient pastoral con¬ 
sideration some persons expected. You have issued your 
“ inhibition ” without waiting for a reply to your .third sum¬ 
mons. Your last letter is, however, less “ dogmatic ” than 
could have been wished, seeing that, though cardinal arch¬ 
bishop and head not only of the diocese but of the province of 
Westminster, you say neither “ yes ” nor ” no ” to my very 
simple question. You refer me to two of your clergy, to 
Franzelin, and to Leo XIII. for an answer. To Pope Leo I 
will go. 

As to what you say about “ private judgment,” all of us, 
however submissive to authority, must, in the last resort, rest 



20 


upon the judgment of our individual reason. How otherwise 
co v .d we know that authority had spoken at all, or what it 
had said ? 

It is impossible to accept anything as true which is a con¬ 
tradiction in terms. Upon that truth all theological reason¬ 
ing is based, and all other reasoning also. 

I greatly desire to state plainly, and to make your eminence 
clearly understand, what my religious position is, and what it 
has for some years been. As you well know, I was once an 
ardent advocate of Catholicism. The best years of my life 
have been spent in its defence, while all I said in its favor I 
most thoroughly meant. Though, like many others who have 
thought much on such subjects, I have occasionally passed 
through periods of doubt, yet for years I was, on the whole, 
happy and full of confidence in the position I had taken up, 
which was clearly expressed in my article, “ The Catholic 
Church and Biblical Criticism,” published in the “ Nineteenth 
Century” for July, 1887. Therein I rested much on the 
teaching of Cardinal Newman, which gave me to understand 
that Catholics were ” free only to hold as ‘ inspired,’ in some 
undefined sense of that word, certain portions or passages of 
the books set before them as canonical.” I found great lati¬ 
tude of scriptural interpretation to be not uncommon amongst 
Catholics, both cleric and lay, and my efforts seemed to meet 
with approbation, notably from Pius IX., and afterwards, in a 
less degree, from Leo XIII. 

All of a sudden, like a bolt from the blue, appeared, in 
1893, that terrible encyclical about Scripture known as 
f ‘ Providentissimus Deus,” containing the following un¬ 
equivocal words: 

It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow 
inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to 


21 


admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of 
those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do 
not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the 
things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as 
they wrongly think), in a question of the truth or falsehood of 
a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said 
as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it 
—this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which 
the church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly 
and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy 
Ghost; and, so far is it from being possible that any error can 
coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essen¬ 
tially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as 
absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God him¬ 
self, the supreme truth, can utter that which is not true. This 
is the ancient and unchanging faith of the church, solemnly 
defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally 
confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the 
Vatican. . . . Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men 
as Hrs instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these 
inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, 
and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He 
so moved and impelled them to write—He was so present to 
them—that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, 
first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, 
and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. 
Otherwise it could not be said that He was the author of the 
entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the 
Fathers. ... It follows that those who maintain that an 
error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings 
either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God 
the author of such error. 


It then seemed plain to me that my position was no longer 
tenable, but I had recourse to the most learned theologian I 
knew and my intimate friend. His representations, distinc¬ 
tions, and exhortations had great influence with me, and more 


22 


or less satisfied me for a time; but ultimately I came to the 
conclusion that Catholic doctrine and science were fatally at 
variance. This is now more clear to me than ever, since my 
“ ordinary ” does not say whether my judgment about what 
the attribution of any document to God’s authorship involves 
is, or is not, right. To me it is plain that God’s veracity 
and His incapability of deceit are primary truths without 
which revelation is impossible. The teaching, then, of Leo 
XIII., addressed dogmatically to the whole church, comes to 
this: Every statement made by a canonical writer must be true 
in the sense in which he put it forward—whether as an his¬ 
torical fact or a moral instruction. 

Thus it is now evident that a vast and impassable abyss 
yawns between Catholic dogma and science, and no man with 
ordinary knowledge can henceforth join the communion of the 
Roman Catholic Church if he correctly understands what its 
principles and its teaching really are, unless they are radi¬ 
cally changed. 

For who could profess to believe the narrative about the 
tower of Babel, or that all species of animals came up to 
Adam to be named by him? Moreover, amongst the writings 
esteemed “ canonical ” by the Catholic church are the book 
of Tobit and the second book of Maccabees, and also the 
story which relates how, when Daniel was thrown a second 
time into the lion’s den, an angel seized Habbacuc, in Judea, 
by the hair of his head and carried him, with his bowl of' 
pottage, to give it to Daniel for his dinner. 

To ask a reasonable man to believe such puerile tales would 
be to insult him. Plainly the Councils of Florence, Trent, 
and the Vatican have fallen successively into greater and 
greater errors, and thus all rational trust in either popes or 
councils is at an end. Some persons may ask me: “ Why 


23 


did you not at once secede? ” But your eminence will agree 
with me that a man should not hastily abandon convictions, 
but rather wait, seek the best advice, and, above all, divine 
aid. It is also a duty of ordinary prudence for a man to 
carefully examine his conscience to see whether any fault 
(e.g., “ pride,” as you suggest) may not be at the root of his 
trouble and perplexity. Now, I have myself maintained, and 
maintain, that a secret wish, an unconscious bias, may lead 
to the acceptance, or rejection, of beliefs of various kinds, 
and certainly of religious beliefs. But, when the question is 
a purely intellectual one of the utmost simplicity, or like a 
proposition in Euclid, then I do not believe in the possibility 
of emotional deception. The falsehood of the historical nar¬ 
ration about Babel is a certainty practically as great as that 
of the equality of the angles at the base of an isosceles 
triangle. 

Still when, in two or three years, I had become fully con¬ 
vinced that orthodox Catholicism was untenable, I was ex¬ 
tremely disinclined to secede. I was most reluctant to give 
pain to many dear Catholic friends, some of whom had been 
very kind to me. My family also was, and is, strongly 
Catholic, and my secession might inflict, mot only great pain, 
but possibly social disadvantage, on those nearest and dearest 
to me. 

Why, then, I asked myself, should I not continue to con¬ 
form, as advocated in my “ Fortnightly Review ” article ? 
Why should I stultify my past career when approaching its 
end, and give myself labor and sorrow ? It was a great temp¬ 
tation. Probably I should have remained silent, had I not, by 
my writings, influenced many persons in favor of what I now 
felt to be erroneous, and therefore inevitably more or less 
hurtful. To such persons I was a debtor. I also hated to 
disguise, even by reticence, what I held to be truth. 


24 


These considerations were brought to a climax last year by 
a grave and prolonged illness. I was told I should probably 
die. Could I go out of the world while still remaining silent ? 
It was plain to me that I ought not, and as soon as I could (in 
August) I wrote my recently-published articles. Therein I 
felt it would be useless to confine myself to that question which 
was for me at the root of the whole matter,—namely, Scrip¬ 
ture. Therefore, while taking care to use no uncertain lan¬ 
guage about the Bible, I made my articles as startling as I 
could in other respects, so as to compel attention to them, and 
elicit, if possible, an unequivocal pronouncement. In this I 
have, thank God, succeeded, and the clause about Scripture I 
am required to sign is for me decisive. 

I categorically refuse to sign the profession of faith. 
Nevertheless, as I said, I am attached to Catholicity as I 
understand it, and to that I adhere. If, then, my recent 
articles had been tolerated, especially my representations as to 
the probability of vast future changes through doctrinal evolu¬ 
tion, I would have remained quiet in the hope that, little by 
little, I might successfully oppose points I had before mis¬ 
takenly advocated. The “ Quarterly ” article of January, 
reviewed by me, and written, I suspect, by a Catholic, pro¬ 
ceeds upon the very principle for which I am censured. I am 
not altogether surprised that your eminence has shirked reply¬ 
ing to my question, and referred me to Dr. Clarke, whose dis¬ 
honesty (not, of course, conscious) and shuffling about Scrip¬ 
ture so profoundly disgusted me. It is to me truly shocking 
that religious teachers, cardinal and priests, profess to think 
certain beliefs to be necessary, and yet will not say what they 
truly are. They resemble quack doctors, wdio play their long 
familiar tricks upon the vulgar, but act otherwise to those they 
cannot trifle with. 


It has long been painful to me to think of the teaching 
given in Catholic schools and often proclaimed from the pul¬ 
pit. There need be small surprise at the opposition existing 
in France to the authoritative teaching of fables, fairy tales, 
and puerile and pestilent superstitions. 

Happily I can now speak with entire frankness as to all my 
convictions. Liberaui animam meam. I can sing my Nunc 
dimittis, and calmly await the future. 

In concluding, I must revert to the apology, about which 
your eminence seems as disposed to shuffle as about Scripture 
statements. If you have recently sold the “ Tablet,” you 
have, of course, ceased to be responsible. If not, however 
you may disclaim it, responsible you are, as a court of law 
would soon demonstrate under certain circumstances. I cannot 
but suspect the great reason for refusing to apologize is the 
desire to represent doctrinal agreement amongst Catholics to 
be much greater than in fact it is. When I spoke of excep¬ 
tional opinions being held by “ good Catholics,” I did not 
mean to affirm they were theologically blameless, but simply 
that they were persons who looked upon themselves as Cath¬ 
olics while leading “ good ” lives in the ordinary sense of 
that word. 

As to public opinion, it is plain the “ Tablet ” is not ap¬ 
proved o£ as to its treatment of me, by other Catholic jour¬ 
nals, while I know that many of your eminence’s clergy, who 
have no sympathy with me, are much disgusted with it. 

Considering how much less is implied by the imputation of 
folly to a man than by what has been said of me by your 
agents, I conclude by calling the attention of your eminence 
to the words attributed to Christ by Matthew in his fifth chap¬ 
ter and twenty-second verse. 

Your most obedient servant, 

St. George Mivart 


26 


Archbishop’s House, Westminster, S. W., January 25, 1900. 

Dear Dr. Mivart: . > 

In reply to your letter received last night, let me point out 
that you have not therein done justice to the Holy Father’s 
encyclical on Scripture, nor perhaps to yourself. When you 
asked me for “ spiritual help and enlightenment,” I urged the 
importance of cultivating three virtues,—humility, purity, and 
a spirit of prayer,—virtues bearing, as it seemed to me, di¬ 
rectly on your present state of mind. And for enlightenment I 
referred you to the most authoritative teaching of Leo XIII., 
as I would any person who came to me as a serious inquirer 
on the question of Holy Scripture. If you think that I 
“ shirked ” your request, or ” shuffled,” as you say, you can¬ 
not have read the letter of the Holy Father in extenso or with 
care. In that letter the pope says : 

Rationalists deny that there is any such thing as revelation 
or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, 
only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down 
the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories; the 
miracles and the wonders of God’s power are not what they 
are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else 
mere tricks and myths. These detestable errors, whereby 
they think they destroy the truth of the divine books, are ob¬ 
truded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a 
certain newly-invented “ free science a science, however, 
which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying 
and supplementing it. 

Surely you will have been able yourself, knowing the real 
state of your own mind better than I can know it, to say 
whether or not your catalogue of narratives described by you 
as “ altogether false,” “ mere fiction devoid of any particle 


27 


of truth,” etc., is alluded to and condemned under the above 
extract. 

But I have said that you have not done justice to the Holy 
Father’s teaching by the quotation that you have made from 
his encyclical. There are passages absolutely needed to 
complete his teaching in the very matter you bring under.dis¬ 
cussion. For instance, take the following: 

There can never be any real discrepancy between the theo¬ 
logian and the physicist as long as each confines himself 
within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine 
warns us, “ not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is 
not known as known.” If dissensions should arise between 
them, here is the rule laid down by St. Augustine. 

And so he goes on. 

Again : 

The sacred writers did not seek to penetrate the secrets of 
nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or 
less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly 
used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily 
use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. 
Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes 
under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred 
writers—as the angelic doctor also reminds us—“ went by 
what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to 
men, signified in the way “ men could understand and were 
accustomed to,” etc., with much more in the same strain of 
explanation; and the Holy Father adds that “ the principles 
here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially 
to history.” 

These passages and others cannot be neglected without ex¬ 
treme levity by any one desiring to represent aright the 
direction given by Leo XIII. to students of the Bible. 



28 


And let me press upon you another consideration, drawn 
from the same encyclical: 

As no one should be so presumptuous as to think that he 
understands the whole of the Scriptures, in which St. Augus¬ 
tine himself confessed that there was more that he did not 
know than that he knew, so, if he should come upon anything 
that seems incapable of solution, he must take to heart the 
cautious rule of the same holy doctor: “It is better even to 
be oppressed by unknown, but useful, signs than to interpret 
them uselessly, and thus to throw off the yoke only to be 
caught in the trap of error.” 

Finally, let me suggest that, besides a certain religious 
reverence due to the Word of God, a philosophic calm and 
measured language should be at least as characteristic of the 
teacher and student of Holy Writ as of the writer on any 
other serious science. 

I must conclude this correspondence by assuring you that 
there is no personal sacrifice that I shall not at any time most 
gladly make, if by so doing I can be of real use to you. I 
shall certainly not fail to pray that God’s grace may prevail 
in the end, and that He may bring you back to the ark of sal¬ 
vation, to our great joy and consolation. 

Believe me always your faithful and devoted servant, 

Herbert Cardinal Vaughan 


29 


January 27, 1900. 1 1 

Dear Lord Cardinal: 

Had I not felt sure our correspondence was at an end, I 
should not, of course, have sent it to be published. Should 
your eminence wish it, and the “ Times ” consent, your last 
and this reply shall be added. 

Permit me, in replying to your kind letter of the 25th inst., 
to separate what is personal from what is doctrinal. 

(1) As to the former, I am perfectly certain that your 
eminence has meant, and means, most kindly to me, and, 
though I cannot but think you were precipitate in addressing 
your clergy so quickly, I am none the less sure it was done 
with regret, and only from an imperative sense of duty. 
Nothing that has happened can obliterate the impression made 
on me by past kindness. I entertain a warm and sincere re¬ 
gard for your eminence, and say, most cordially: “ Ad multos 
annos! ” I feel no less interest than I did in the progress of 
the new cathedral, and only wait to know its interior is free 
from scaffolding to visit it for a careful survey. 

(2) As to doctrine, I have carefully read the whole of the 
encyclical, and can find nothing which negatives the very 
plain and decisive affirmations quoted by me. But, were it 
otherwise, it would only include the pope amongst the ecclesi¬ 
astics who have so profoundly disgusted me by simultaneous 
assertions and denials; who try to play fast and loose with 
what they profess to regard as most sacred, saying that certain 
things must be believed, while yet they may be disbelieved; 
that it is necessary for salvation to hold with the fathers and 
doctors of the church, and also that there is really no occa- 

1 In supplying to the press his final letter to the cardinal, Dr. Mivart re¬ 
marks: u The passages quoted from the pope’s encyclical by the cardinal are 
quite irrelevant to the point at issue, though it is worth while to note that they 
contain a complete repudiation of the principle inculcated by Paul V. and 
Urban VIII. in the condemnation of Copernicanism.” 



30 


sion so to do; that the decrees of Trent and the Vatican must 
absolutely be accepted as they were meant, and yet that they 
may be explained away. 

The fact is that all Catholic teachers about Scripture are 
embarrassed by antecedent affirmations which you cannot dis¬ 
own, glad as you would be so to do. The Council of Trent 
naturally fell into error, because then modern science was but 
in its infancy; while that of the Vatican was no less mis¬ 
taken, because the great majority of its bishops neither knew 
nor cared anything about natural science. 

But these truths you are not free to affirm because of the 
dogma of “ infallibility,” which clings to the church like the 
fatal garment of Nessus, and will surely eat away its sub¬ 
stance and reduce it to a mouldering, repulsive skeleton if that 
doctrine does not come to be explained away by dexterous 
Catholic theologians. 

As to the old, worn-out saying, “ There can be no dis¬ 
crepancy between science and religion,” it is quite true if 
religion is always careful to change its teaching in obedience 
to science, but not otherwise. 

As to “ accommodations ” and “ Biblical modes of speak¬ 
ing,” it is “ true,” or it is “ not true,” that the animals 
went up to Adam to be named, and so with respect to the 
story about Babel, etc. 

Very many men and women are now anxious and distressed 
about their duty with regard to the Bible. What good end 
can be served by telling them it “ contains no errors,” while 
yet a multitude of its statements are altogether false? 

By such a method the very foundations of religion become 
tainted with insincerity, untruth, and dishonesty. 

Believe me, dear Lord Cardinal, yours, after all, 
affectionately, 


St. George Mivart. 


31 


Notice of Inhibition of Sacraments. 1 

Archbishop’s House, Westminster, 
Feast of St. Peter’s Chair, 1900. 

Rev. Dear Father: 

Dr. St. George Mivart, in his articles entitled “ The Con¬ 
tinuity of Catholicism ” and “ Some Recent Apologists,” in 
the “ Nineteenth Century ” and the “ Fortnightly Review ” 
for January, 1900, has declared, or at least seemed to declare, 
that it is permissible for Catholics to hold certain heresies— 
regarding the virginal birth of Our Lord and the perpetual 
virginity of the Blessed Virgin; the gospel account of the 
resurrection and the immunity of the sacred body from cor¬ 
ruption; the reality and transmission of original sin; the 
redemption as a real satisfaction for the sins of men; the ever¬ 
lasting punishment of the wicked; the inspiration and integ¬ 
rity of Holy Scripture; the right of the Catholic church to 
interpret the sense of Scripture with authority; her perpetual 
retention of her doctrines in the same sense; not to speak of 
other false propositions. As he has thereby rendered his 
orthodoxy suspect, and has, moreover, confirmed the suspicion 
by failing, after three notifications, to sign the annexed pro¬ 
fession of faith when tendered to him by me, it now becomes 
my duty to take further action, and I hereby inhibit him from 
approaching the sacraments, and forbid my priests to ad¬ 
minister them to him, until he shall have proved his ortho¬ 
doxy to the satisfaction of his ordinary. 

Believe me to be, Rev. dear Father, your faithful and 
devoted servant, 

Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, 

Archbishop of Westminster. 

1 A circular letter addressed to the Roman Catholic clergy of the diocese of 
Westminster. 


32 


P. S.—If it were true, as Dr. Mivart asserts, that there 
were persons calling themselves Catholics who hold any of the 
above heresies, it would be necessary to remind them that 
they have ceased in reality to be Catholics, and that, if they 
were to approach the sacraments, they would do so sacri¬ 
legiously, at the peril of their souls, and in defiance of the law 
of the church. 

Herbert Cardinal Vaughan. 


33 


SOME RECENT CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS. 1 

The task of the apologist, for whatsoever cause or institu¬ 
tion, must, in order to be effective, vary according to the 
internal condition of, and the prevalent state of opinion re¬ 
specting, that for which he pleads. 

The advocate of Catholicity in the time of Innocent III. had 
indeed a different task from that of his successors in the six¬ 
teenth and eighteenth centuries. A Catholic reaction has 
found a place in our own age, but it has, nevertheless, been 
'accompanied by new and notable developments of unbelief. ' 

In the words of a learned and candid Roman ecclesiastic: 2 

There is no denying it, we have entered a period of excep¬ 
tionally deep^ and widespread unbelief. Christianity has 
ceased in a great measure to be the acknowledged basis of 
society and the common bond of civilized nations. 

This “ falling away ” has by no means, however, been a 
simply negative process.- It has been largely the consequence 
of an advance in one or another department of science (biol¬ 
ogy, history, critical science, or ethics), resulting in the pro¬ 
duction of convictions deemed so inconsistent with fundamen¬ 
tal Christian beliefs that no honest man could hold them and 
continue to conform to the usages of his antecedent creed. 

This judgment the modern Apologist seeks to combat by de¬ 
claring the “ beliefs ” referred to not “ fundamental,” and 
affirming that, though they may for centuries have been re¬ 
garded as of vital importance, they are really but immaterial 

1 Originally printed in the " Fortnightly Review.” 

2 The Very Rev. J. B. Hogan, S.S., D.D., President of St. John’s Semi¬ 
nary, Massachusetts. See his work lt Clerical Studies,” Boston, 1898, p. 98. 


34 


opinions, so that religious conformity need not come to an end 
on their account. Such is especially the case since they may 
become so changed and transformed as to assume an entirely 
new aspect, or may be simply and silently dropped altogether. 

In a review bearing the title which heads this article, it 
would be disingenuous for its author not to acknowledge that 
he has himself taken a small part in such apologetics. 

It was evident to me, when I began to write, that a serious 
conflict existed in the minds of many persons, between their 
religious beliefs and certain convictions and sentiments with 
which my innermost nature compelled me to sympathize. For 
as in youth I loved both natural science and history, and also, 
early attained the conviction that there exists, pervading the 
universe, an intelligence utterly unfathomable by man, and 
that the world could not be explained or understood by me¬ 
chanical conceptions only, I also became assured that Catho¬ 
licity, well understood, is the most developed form of theism, 
and that, in addition to its other claims on acceptance, it acts 
as a very potent social bond, and supports and promotes (with 
whatever local or temporary drawbacks) the most benevolent 
and the noblest aspirations. 

Any one so thinking would be clearly blamev/orthy if he did 
not do the best that was in him to ward off religious anarchy 
and nihilism. Moreover, the history of the rise and fail of 
religions has had a special interest for me ever since, as a 
boy, I became fascinated with the history of the Emperor 
Julian, as told by Gibbon. Perceiving much beauty and many 
merits in Paganism, I could well understand how worthy men 
should have offered homage at its shrines, while profoundly 
differing from the populace arpund them both in purpose and 
belief. But, if conformity was then desirable, why not now 
for many persons troubled with doubts and difficulties about 


35 


the religion of the modern world—Christianity and 
Catholicism? 

I therefore felt bound to do my best to remove misunder¬ 
standings and promote concord as far as I could honestly 
promote it. 

The first subject to which I applied myself was that which 
had then been most combated,—namely , the theory of evo¬ 
lution, including that of the human body. I urged 1 that the 
doctrines on the subject, derived from the Bible, had been 
shown, through the principles laid down by authoritative me¬ 
diaeval theologians, to be capable of so complete a transfor¬ 
mation that they need cause no further trouble, even to the 
scrupulous. Nevertheless, I found, later on, that the minds 
of many Catholics continued to be troubled on account of what 
they took to be authoritative pronouncements against evo- 
* lution. I, therefore, specially applied myself 2 to demonstrate, 
by a notable example from astronomy, how great their free¬ 
dom really was, and how untrammelled their minds, by the 
yoke of ecclesiastical authority in all scientific matters. I 
was careful to claim this freedom, not only for physical, but 
also for historical and critical science. Yet, as it seemed to 
me that conformity, which had been secured by my astronomi¬ 
cal contention, might be imperilled through questions concern¬ 
ing Scripture criticism, I next addressed myself 3 to that 
question. 

The number of persons troubled about these matters, how¬ 
ever, I found to be both fewer and less tried than those scan¬ 
dalized by the Catholic doctrine about hell and damnation— 

1 See my "Genesis of Species” and " Lessons from Nature.” 

2 See my article entitled " Modern Catholics and Scientific Freedom,” in the 
"Nineteenth Century,” for July, 1885. 

3 See my article, " The Catholic Church and Biblical Criticism,” in the 
" Nineteenth Century.” for July, 1887. 


36 


as commonly understood. In the interests of Catholicity, 
therefore, I did my best to show 1 that its doctrines on this 
subject readily admitted of so complete a transformation that 
they no longer need distress men of ordinary good feeling. 

This well-meant endeavor did not, however, meet with ap¬ 
proval at Rome, for my articles were placed upon the 
“ Index.” As I was called upon to make no retractation, and 
as not a single position put forward by me was condemned, I 
thought it well, out of respect for Leo XIII., and for other 
reasons, 2 to submit to the decree, and I submitted. I did not, 
however, withdraw or renounce any one of the opinions I had 
maintained, and certainly I do not withdraw them now. 3 I 
still regard the representations as to hell which have been 
commonly promulgated, in sermons and meditations, as so 
horrible and revolting that a Deity capable of instituting such 
a place of torment would be a bad God, and, therefore, in the . 
words of the late Dr. W. G. Ward, 4 a God “ we should be 

1 See " Happiness in Hell,” in the " Nineteenth Century,” for December, 
1892, and February, 1893, and " Last Words on the Happiness in Hell,” in 
the number for April, 1893, in the same periodical. 

2 See my article " The Index and my Articles on Hell,” in the " Nineteenth 
Century ” for December, 1893. It may seem inconsistent on my part, after 
thus submitting, to refer readers to my condemned articles, which amounts, 
perhaps, to a republication of them. But I am now free so to act, since in 
August last I wrote to Cardinal Steinhuber, S.J. (prefect of the Sacred Con¬ 
gregation of the " Index ”), to say that, since my article had been freshly 
placed on the " Index ” (in a new edition of that publication), if I did not 
receive answers to certain questions I should feel compelled to withdraw my 
submission. The reply I received did not answer those questions, and my 
submission is withdrawn accordingly. 

3 The Hon. Lionel A. Tollemache, in his work on Benjamin Jowett, in a 
note on p. 27, speaks of my “relapsing” into my "amiable heresy.” But no 
proposition of mine has been condemned as a " heresy,” and there can be no 
need for me to return to what I have never renounced. 

4 See his work " Nature and Grace ” (1860), pp. 86, 87. 


37 


under the indefeasible obligation of disobeying, defying, 
and abhorring..” 

As an Apologist, it has been my great endeavor to be, 
above all things, truthful and candid, not to shirk difficulties, 
not to ignore any claim of science, .or shrink from pointing out 
mistakes made by church authorities. The Apologist who 
shows a want of sympathy with science, or a want of candor 
as to its assured progress, the benefits it has conferred upon 
mankind^ or its triumphs over the obstructions placed in its 
way, will but injure the cause he has set out to serve. 

Now, it was for centuries believed that God had instituted 
a society on the government of which He had conferred the 
power of deciding infallibly all questions of belief which were 
of moment to mankind, and of legislating unerringly as to all 
matters of human conduct. 

Welcome, indeed, such an institution would be, but it 
would be worse than folly to seek to maintain that belief now, 
when ecclesiastical authority has itself demonstrated, through 
its own mistakes and errors, that its legitimate field of in¬ 
fluence is very much less extensive than it was long supposed 
to be. 

Such changes as to belief have at least this advantage for 
the Catholic Apologist: they supply him with a powerful argu¬ 
ment in favor of patience and continued conformity in spite of 
difficulties, since., if such transformations have already re¬ 
moved so many difficulties, other changes may fairly be ex¬ 
pected to do away with such as yet remain. 

This question has been lately treated of in an article 1 
entitled “ The Ethics of Religious Conformity.” I have not 
space to review the essay at length; I must confine myself to 
noticing a few salient points in it, giving quotations sufficient 

1 See the " Quarterly Review ” for January, 1899. 


38 


to enable the reader to judge as to the justice of my criticism. 
Its anonymous author does not declare to what religious 
communion he belongs, but I think the internal evidence it 
affords suffices to make clear that it is the communion of 
Rome. He begins thus: 

While Renan was writing his “ History of Israel,” he is 
said to have paid a visit to Bernez, the Jewish Rationalist. 

He arrived at the festival of the Passover, and to his great 
surprise found Bernez was keeping it with punctilious obser¬ 
vance of the ancient ritual. Renan expressed his astonishment 
that his friend should solemnly commemorate the holy days of 
a creed in which he had ceased to believe; but Bernez defended 
himself. “ Dogma is a source of disunion,” he said, ” but 
ancient ritual observances preserve our common esprit de 
corps. ’ ’ 

The Quarterly Reviewer has much to say as to the views of 
Mr. Henry Sidgwick, 1 and he also refers to the opinions of 
Dr. Sabatier, 2 and some long ago given forth by the late 
Cardinal Newman. 3 

Mr. Sidgwick considers that, when various members of the 
church of England have ceased to believe any of its doctrines, 
they are not bound to cease conformity with its worship, or 
to separate themselves from it, unless they hold, or are' seek¬ 
ing to obtain, some official position, for the occupation of 
which an express profession of assent to its formulas is a 
necessary condition. 4 He deprecates secession on the ground 
of the ethical damage which would probably thence arise to 

1 In his work, " Practical Ethics ” (1898), and especially in the section 
" The Ethics of Religious Conformity.” 

- “ The Vitality of Christian Dogmas and their Power of ■Evolution.” 
Translated by Mrs. Emmanuel Christen (1898). 

a “ Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford ” (1843). 

4 His words are : “ Any educational or other post of trust, in which mem¬ 
bership to the chur;h of England is required as a condition.” 


39 


the.seceder himself, and its injurious tendency for the com¬ 
munity. Mr. Arthur Balfour has well pointed out 1 that a 
religious organization (a church) is one “ charged with a 
great practical work. For the successful promotion of this 
work unity, discipline, and self-devotion are the principal 
requisites; and, as in the case of every other such organiza¬ 
tion, the most powerful source of these qualities is to be found 
in the feelings aroused by common memories, common hopes, 
common loyalties; by professions in which all agree, by a 
ceremonial which all share; by customs and commands which 
all obey.” 

These considerations appear to me to carry great weight, as 
does also the reflection that a man can do much more to aid 
progress while still a member of the church than when he 
has once separated himself from it. 

Dr. Sabatier would have sympathetic theologians gradually 
discard the old dogmas or formulae (the husk, as it were), 
only preserving the nutritious contents, the essence uninjured, 
while evolving truth yet more precious. Dr. Newman would 
preserve even the formulae while recognizing their human 
element, and consequent incapacity to express adequately what 
they would shadow forth to us, and the frequent need of a 
process of evolution to bring out into clear expression the 
latent truths he believed them to contain. The Quarterly Re¬ 
viewer, however, denies that conformity is justifiable on Mr. 
Sidgwick’s principles. 

His conclusion is 2 : 

For those who hold the theory of the evolution of dogma, 
whether in Newman’s sense or in Sabatier’s, conformity to a 
religious creed would appear to be lawful on the part of those 

] See his “ Foundations of Belief,” Longmans, 1895, p. 274. 

P. 135. 



40 


who separate themselves by a considerable interval from the 
position accounted orthodox by the powers of the formularies 
or their official guardians. Such persons believe themselves 
to have reached a stage in the evolution of dogma which the 
bulk of the officials of the particular communion havd" not 
reached. But for those who regard the explanations of 
Newman and Sabatier as tantamount to the simple denial of 
the creeds, or who reject the theory of development, and 
have no other theory separating their position from a negative 
one, we cannot see in the mere utility of religion any justifica¬ 
tion for conformity. 

Mr. Sidgwick pleads a “ common understanding,” but our 
argument is- this: Either that common understanding assumes a 
theory of advance and development of dogma, in which case 
we do admit its sufficiency, while we deny that on such a 
theory the creeds are simply disbelieved; or the “ common 
understanding” rests in a really sceptical theory, held in 
different ways by Bernez and Renan, on the theory that dogma 
is doomed to disappear, but that it is lawful, for reasons of 
sentiment and utility, to adhere to a creed in which you dis¬ 
believe. So stated, we reject the theory. 

Now, no one could reasonably deny the lawfulness of “ con¬ 
formity ” for persons who adopt the principle of Sabatier or . 
Newman. But I do not see why it is not also lawful for those 
who hold with Mr. Sidgwick. Indeed I much prefer (as more 
honest, reasonable, and reverent) a frank statement, such as 
his, to the tortuous and involved positions assumed by the 
Quarterly Reviewer, which every now and then seem to result 
in the loss of all rational signification (see pp. 107-109). 

Referring to Newman’s well-known and often-quoted pass¬ 
age about musical harmony, the Reviewer says 1 : 

This analogy suggests in the first place the function of dog¬ 
matic formulas in conveying to the soul divine truths, and 


t 


1 P. 117. 



41 


enabling these truths to affect the soul, while the formulae can 
never adequately represent such truths as they are in them¬ 
selves, or as they affect the soul. 

But can formulae ever represent even a blackbird “as it is 
in itself ” ? 

The Reviewer further observes 1 : • 

We believe that such figurative knowledge as is conveyed to 
us by the formula does place us in some relation with the 
unseen world. Thus assent to the formula is intellectually 
somewhat indefinite. 

It is that indeed, but it is much more. It is wholly in¬ 
definite ! 

This assent, he further tells us, is “ a surrender to truths 
which we believe to be acting on us, without our being able 
intellectually to grasp them.” 

But truths which are not grasped by our intellect cannot 
be “ truths,” for us, at all. Such so-called “ truths ” can 
convey to our mind no information whatever. 

The Quarterly Reviewer’s attitude to a religious formula, 
which is but a blank to his intellect, may well remind 
us of the old woman’s mental attitude towards “ that blessed 
word Mesopotamia.” 

The Reviewer himself describes, as follows, 2 what our 
mental attitude should be to such a formula: 

What that truth is our intellect can never explicitly know 
in this world. Our assent to it is an act of firm adhesion to 
whatever truth God is conveying to us, an opening of our 
nature to what He imparts, but not an act of intellectual com¬ 
prehension of that truth. 

But even omnipotence cannot “ open our nature ”—-what- 


1 P. 118. 


2 P. 115, 


42 


ever that process may be—and “ impart ” to us any 
“ truth,” save by causing our intellect to apprehend it; and, 
while we live on earth, by directly or indirectly acting on our 
brain. No divine action on the lungs, the liver, or the heart, 
could ever enable us to apprehend “ truth.” 

According to our author-’s teaching, as here expressed, we_ 
are to accept and “ firmly adhere ” to a proposition which is 
no truth for us, and to “ open our nature ” to what God leaves 
inapprehensible by our intellect. We are to accept with 
reverence and open our nature to “ Abracadabra.” What 
utter absurdity might not claim acceptance on such principles 
as these? 

But the Quarterly Reviewer contends that dogmas, as ex¬ 
pressed to us, may be neither true nor untrue, and that none 
of these formulae are “ ultimate positions.” 

I, on the other hand, earnestly contend that every statement, 
duly analyzed, must be true or untrue. For what is truth ? 

It consists in an accurate correspondence between an act of 
the intellect (normally, and especially, a judgment) and some 
objective existence. So far as any assertion conveys to us an 
idea which corresponds with objective reality, it is “ true ” ; 
and, so far as it diverges from that reality, it is “ untrue.” 
There are, therefore, different degrees of untruth. 

But, because a statement is “ incomplete,” it does not 
thereby deserve to be called “ untrue.” Thus the assertion, 

“ A Siamang Gibbon is distinguished by having a chin,” is 
not untrue because that animal is also distinguished by having 
two toes on each foot bound together by skin. 

But, because, again, every statement must be true or false, 
it does not follow that assertions may not be made which con¬ 
tain both truth and falsehood. Such statements, though appar¬ 
ently single, really, when analyzed, may be seen to consist of 


43 


two or more assertions mixed up together and requiring to be 
accurately distinguished. 

Thus the statement, “ A whale is a sort of fish which has 
warm blood,” contains both a true and a false assertion. The 
expression “ a sort of ” may predicate either “ a general like¬ 
ness ” or an “ absolute identity of nature.” 

The assertion, “ A whale is a creature with a general like¬ 
ness to a fish, and has warm blood,” is true. The statement, 
“ A whale is a creature with the absolute nature of a fish, and 
has warm blood,” is false. 

The Reviewer remarks, with respect to High Churchmen 
and Roman Catholics, that they agree in regarding “ the 
Christian church as the final sanction of dogmatic formu¬ 
lae, and the mind of the church (to us only gradually and 
never completely disclosed) as the repositary of their true 
meaning . 9 ’ 

Elsewhere, 1 also, the Reviewer speaks of that “ depositary 
of all knowledge—the mind of the church.” 

But what is “ the church ” ? In truth, no such thing really 
has, or can have, any separate existence. All that exists is 
a number of men and women who possess certain attributes 
and stand in various real relations to their environment. 

The formal term church denotes an ideal abstraction, spe¬ 
cially representing the religious relations of the persons who 
compose it; though, of course, such terms are convenient, and 
there should be no hesitation in using them. But the passage 
last quoted is a good example of the way in which, not only 
that abstraction, “ the church,” may be treated as a separate 
substantial entity, but an abstraction from that abstraction 
may further be personified as its “ mind.” 

How can this unreal, personified abstraction from an ab- , 


1 P. 126. 



44 


straction be “ a depositary ” for the “ meanings of formulas ” 
—meanings which, according to the Reviewer, no man does, 
or ever will, understand ? Thus we have non-existent mean¬ 
ings, deposited in the non-existent mind of an hypostatized 
church ! 

Finally, the Reviewer tells us 1 that the invocation of the 
“ sense of the church supplies us with a fixed object of faith 
and loyalty ”—faith in and loyalty towards a personified ab¬ 
straction from an abstraction, which has no real existence, or 
ever did or could have had it. It seems to me better, instead 
of professing reverence for incomprehensible formulae, to 
patiently await their disappearance. They may disappear: 

(1) By transformation, as, e.g., the dictum “ out of the 
church was salvation” ; (2) by “ glosses,” such as have 
abolished the decrees against usury; or (3) they may be 
simply dropped altogether, as the belief in Christ’s speedy 
second advent. 

No fair-minded man will endure with patience the Quarterly 
Reviewer’s remarks upon the modifications and reversals which 
have taken place in physical science. Progress is impossible 
without modifications, and we may reculer pour mieux sauter. 

But for the last three hundred years there has been a con¬ 
tinual, solid, and steady advance in physical, historical, and 
critical knowledge. This readiness to carp at science is dis¬ 
creditable to men like the Quarterly Reviewer, and tends to 
damage their own cause. Edifying is it, on the other hand, 
when we meet with due recognition of science at the hands of 
dogmatic theologians such as the before referred to Very Rev. 
Dr. Hogan.' 2 

1 P. 128. 

2 See his “ Clerical Studies,” Boston, 1898, p. 131. Geological science 
11 advances triumphantly, adding in each decade new and suggestive facts ; 
whilst its main principles have won the respect of all those who have made it 


45 


The Reviewer tells us 1 that, during the transition of a 
dogma from an old meaning to a new signification, it should 
be accepted “ in the sense of the church.” According to 
this, while Copernicanism was being anathematized by the 
Congregations of the Index and Inquisition, and by the pope 
himself, all the time the Newtonian astronomy* with other 
truths to be discovered later, were safely deposited in “ the 
mind of the church,” which, from the Apostolic age till 1820, 
kept them so securely hidden that for centuries no suspicion 
of their existence there was possible. 

Before bidding a final farewell to the Quarterly Reviewer, 
we cannot permit one more statement he has made 2 to pass 
uncensured. After observing that, Galileo’s discovery 
having proved undeniable, while theologians maintained it-was 
against Scripture, an impasse was thus produced, which is now 
got rid of, “ how,” he asks, “ did this come to pass ? More 
"recent theological analysis has pointed out that, in the case 
of a divine communication in writing to fallible and change¬ 
able man, the reasoning of Galileo’s critics was inadequate.” 

This is an untrue representation. It was not “ theological 
analysis,” but the progress of physical science, which forced 
ecclesiastical authorities, willy-nilly, to retreat; to practically 
own themselves beaten, and to make tardy—disgracefully 
tardy—concessions. This misstatement, however, is a com¬ 

paratively trifling matter. Much more serious is what has 

the object of an intelligent and careful study. Such sciences cannot be set 
aside or overlooked. The Apologist who shows distrust and dislike of them 
only injures himself and his cause; and, if it were possible that a choice had 
to be made between them and the faith, it is much to be feared that the world 
would turn its back on the latter.” 

1 P. 135. 

2 P. 119. 


46 


been written by another Catholic Apologist, Mr. Wilfrid 
Ward. 1 

He has not scrupled to affirm that “ Galileo was ‘ con¬ 
demned for applying his theory to the detailed interpretation 
of Scripture, which he ought to have left to the theologian. 

It was for this intrusion on the theological domain that his 
position was condemned, although Copernicanism had already 
been tolerated as a scientific hypothesis.’ ” 

The repetition of this abominable falsehood, which has 
been again and again refuted, may be partly due to what 
yet another Catholic Apologist, Mr. Wegg-Prosser, has 
written on the subject. 2 The last-named author makes a 
similar statement, though he can bring no evidence to support 
it. He tells us, indeed, of the Cardinals Ballarnini and del 
Monte having had a conversation, in March, 1615, wherein 
they agreed that Galileo “ ought to avoid entering on the in¬ 
terpretation of Scripture ” ; but he introduces this statement 
by the words, “ It is said,” while he himself remarks upon 
the unsatisfactory evidential nature of conversations merely 
reported, and not at once written down. The only other pass¬ 
age referring to Scripture interpretation 3 is a statement by 
Father Riccardi to the Inquisitor of Florence, that Galileo 
must put forward his heliocentric view merely as a hypothesis, 
“ and this without alluding to the interpretation of Scripture.” 

Now, Galileo’s writings found their place on the “ Index,” 
along with other works favoring Copernicanism, in the year 
1616. Then it was that Sacred Congregation made a solemn 
decree about that false and Pythagorean doctrine , altogether opposed 

1 See his article “ Catholic Apologists,” in the 11 Nineteenth Century ” for 
June, 1899, p. 955. 

2 “ Nineteenth Century,” June, 1899, p. 959. 

3 See his work “ Galileo and his Judges,” Chapman & Hall, 1889, pp. 18, 47. 


47 


to Divine Scripture, on the mobility of the earth, and the immobility of 
the sun. But there is much more than this to show what was 
the true reason and motive of the condemnation of Copernican- 
ism. Galileo was condemned in 1633, not for applying his 
theory to the interpretation of Scripture, but because, after 
Copernicanism had been condemned, and in defiance of an 
order from the pope and the Holy Office that he was not to 
hold, defend, or teach the theory in any manner, he had pub¬ 
lished his “ Dialoge,” a.scientific treatise in which he repre¬ 
sented Copernicanism as a probably true theory. 

In the sentence pronounced on Galileo by the Inquisition, we 
read: 

Invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and 
that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this 
our definite sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare 
that you, the said Galileo, on account of the things proved against 
you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed 
by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office 
vehemently suspected of heresy—that is, of having believed and held a 
doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine 
Scriptures— to wit, that the sun is the centre of the worla, and that 
it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves and is 
not the centre of the universe. 

The condemnation 1 of Galileo by the Inquisition was conse¬ 
quent on eight heads of accusation which had been drawn up 
against him in 1632. 2 Now, there is not one of them which 
refers, in the very faintest way, to Scripture interpretation. 

As to that, it was not Galileo, but his judges, who went wrong, 
and they did so doubly. 

1 The full theological significance of all these acts is pointed out by the 
Rev. W. W. Roberts, whose work, “The Pontifical Decrees against the 
Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement ” (published by Messrs. Parker & Co.), 
should be carefully studied by every one interested in the subject. 

i See Mr. Wegg Prosser’s book, p. 80. 



48 


Ecclesiastical authority gave judgment as to physical 
science, and so went ultra vires. But it did much more than 
that. It founded its erroneous decree affecting physical sci¬ 
ence, which was not its own province, upon an erroneous judg¬ 
ment about the meaning of Scripture , 1 which, up till that 
time, had been universally supposed to be its own province. 

These proceedings demonstrate two facts which are most 
important to Catholic men of science. One is that what is 
declared by even the highest known congregation (that of the 
Holy Office), whose president is the pope, and when the subject 
matter treated of is Scripture, may be quite erroneous. The 
other noteworthy fact is that men of physical science may have 
truer religious perceptions imparted to them, than any Roman 
congregation. This the Galileo case demonstrated absolutely 
and once for all; since we may safely affirm that whatever has 
shown itself to be a fact is at least a possibility. 

God has thus taught us, through history, that it is not to 
ecclesiastical congregations, but to men of science, that He 
has committed the elucidation of scientific questions, whether 
such questions are or are not treated of by Scripture, the 
Fathers, the church’s common teaching, or special congrega¬ 
tions or tribunals of ecclesiastics actually summoned for the 
purpose. This also applies to all science—to Scripture criti¬ 
cism, to biology, and to all questions concerning evolution, 
the antiquity of man, and the origin of either his body or his 
soul, or of both. For all ecclesiastics who know nothing of 
natural science, it is an act necessarily as futile as imperti¬ 
nent to express any opinion on such subjects. 

Therefore, Catholic men of science should calmly follow the 
even tenor of their way, regardless of all outcries, keeping 

1 This fact was first called attention to by the Rev. W. W. Roberts, and 
afterwards by me. See “ Nineteenth Century ” for July, 1885, p. 39. 


49 


ever before their eyes the crescentic Venus of Galileo 1 as their 
guiding star. 

It would now be manifestly nothing less than absurd for ec¬ 
clesiastics to assert any special claim to explain Scripture, 
seeing that church authorities have continuously misled the 
Christian world concerning it for eighteen hundred years; 
which world has only recently been delivered from such de¬ 
lusion through the labors of non-Catholic scientific men of 
Holland, Germany, and France. The only Catholic ecclesias¬ 
tic I have heard of who was a precursor in their higher criti¬ 
cism was a Scotch priest named Geddes, and he got excommu¬ 
nicated for his pains. 

But, if Galileo had been condemned for interpreting Scrip¬ 
ture, it would only have been the more ridiculous, since the 
very highest living ecclesiastical authority has professed 
gratitude to him for what he did in that respect. Leo XIII., 
in February, 1877 (the year before his elevation to the 
papacy), published a pastoral letter, in which he declares 
that “ Galileo, who gave to experimental philosophy one of 
its most vigorous impulses, reached, by means of his researches , 
the proof that Holy Scripture and nature equally exhibit the 
footprints of a deity! 2 

1 It was objected to Galileo then, did Venus revolve round the sun, she 
would exhibit such phases as does the moon. Galileo’s telescope demon¬ 
strated at once that such was the case, and Venus was shown in her crescentic 
aspect. 

2 Mr. Wegg Prosser tells us (p. Ill) that it was my article (before referred 
to) which led him to write his own book, wherein he has treated me very 
courteously, in spite of the difference between our views. He seems to 
think that I may have modified my own, but such is by no means the case. 
Noting my complaint that authority had made no reparation to Galileo or to 
science, he refers to the relaxation of censures which took place in 1757, the 
permission given, in 1820, to teach that the earth moves, and, in 1822, to 
print and publish at Rome works advocating the heliocentric views, and then 
declares that “ Mr. Mivart must have been unaware of these facts.” But 


50 


The true cause of his condemnation is already expressed by 
Galileo himself in his enforced abjuration: “ Because after 
this Holy Office had juridically enjoined me to abandon alto¬ 
gether the false opinion which holds that the sun is the centre 
of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the cen¬ 
tre and moves, -and had forbidden me do hold and defend or 
teach in any manner the said false doctrine, and after it had 
been notified to rfie that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy 
Scripture, I wrote ^,nd caused to be printed a book wherein I 
treat of the same doctrine already condemned, and adduced 
arguments with great efficacy in favor of it without offering 
any solution of them. Therefore, I am judged, vehemently 
suspected of heresy, that of having held and believed that 
the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the 
earth is not the centre, and moves. Wherefore, desiring to 
remove from the minds of your eminences and all Catholic 
Christians this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived 
against me with a sincere heart and faith, unfeigned, I abjure, 
curse, and detest the above-named errors and heresies, and 
generally every other error and sect contrary to the above- 
named church.” 

The opinion appears to be entertained both by Mr. Wegg- 
Prosser and Wilfrid Ward that it is enough if ecclesiastical 
authority concedes liberty of thought and speech when opin¬ 
ions, previously condemned, have been triumphantly shown by 
men of science to be unquestionably true. 

such tardy revocations, which had become absolutely indispensable to save 
Rome becoming the laughing-stock of the civilized world (as it will soon 
become as regards “ evolution,” if some ignorant men of the Curia are not 
quickly muzzled), were well known to me, and regarded as quite insufficient. 
Nothing short of an official declaration that Galileo was innocent, and his 
conduct praiseworthy (except his abjuration), with a public and authoritative 
apology for the conduct of the popes and cardinals of Galileo’s day, would, to 
my mind, at all meet the claims of justice in this matter. 



51 


This is, in my eyes, a most shocking principle. We have 
thus an authority claiming absolute supremacy, and allowed by 
most of its followers to possess it, misleading them in the most 
egregious manner. A religious authority should, at least, not 
affirm that to be true which it well knows may be false. But 
ecclesiastical authority claimed, in Galileo’s day, not only to 
decide an astronomical question, but thereby affirmed that such 
scientific questions (regarded in connection with Scripture) 
were questions within its own province. It did so; for, when a 
judge decides any point, he, ipso facto, decides that it is 
within his own province to judge concerning it. If a tribunal 
be invested with the attribute of infallibility, it surely may 
be expected to know the limits of its own power. Such a 
tribunal, then, if it oversteps its own boundary, and then ex¬ 
presses a mistaken judgment, shows itself to be trebly wrong 
and doubly mistaken: 

(1) It is wrong, in the first place, in that it expresses an 
absolute, yet mistaken, judgment, without taking the means 
needful to make its judgment perfectly secure and infallible. 
Non-Catholics may well ask, if the pope had only to occupy a 
certain chair in order to decide infallibly about the Galileo 
question, why he did not get into that chair? 

(2) Secondly, the tribunal errs because, by deciding the 
question, it affirms that it has the power to decide securely 
about such a matter, while its impotent blunder demonstrated 
that it affirmed what it had no power to affirm, and decided 
without authority so to do. 

(3) It is erroneous, thirdly, if it decides that to be true in 
fact which is really not so—as was the case with the tribunals 
which had to do with Galileo; but, whatever allowance may 
be made for theologians who were the contemporaries of Gali¬ 
leo, none surely can be made for those of our own day, who, 


52 


with the blunders of successive popes, and of the congregations 
of the Index and the Inquisition, before their eyes, yet dare 
to censure theories of physical science, such as those of evolu¬ 
tion and the natural development of man from the lower ani¬ 
mals . 1 If interrogated by some foolish persons, and so 
almost compelled to say something, what such Ecclesiastical 
authorities ought to say should be something to this effect: 

1 It has now been long supposed, by educated Catholics interested in such 
subjects, that ecclesiastical authorities had ceased all opposition to the view of 
modern biological science, and this the more since they had been tolerated, 
and more, by Pius IX. It seems, however, that these authorities are like the 
Bourbons in their inability to profit by experience. In that well-known organ 
of the Roman Jesuits, the u Civilta Cattolica,” of January 7th, 1899, Series 
xvii., Vol. v., No. 1165, p. 34, there appeared an article entitled “ Evolu- 
zione a domma,” which was an attack on Professor Zahm’s well-known work, 
“ Evolution and Dogma ” (which has been translated into Italian), uphold¬ 
ing evolution and the natural origin of the human body. 

This work has been censured in a Jeremiad, emitted by the Bishop of Cre¬ 
mona, on October 22nd, 1898. But the writer in the “ Civiltk ” records facts 
which do not seem to have been generally known concerning the French 
Dominican, Pere Leroy. 

That religious Catholic professor had published at Paris, in 1891, a work 
entitled “ L’Evolution Restreinte aux Especes Organiques ” (with the con¬ 
sent of the authorities of his order, and the cordial support of that other 
charming Catholic professor, M. A. de Lapparent), in which he had sup¬ 
ported evolution, including that of man’s body. 

The “ Civilta ” tells us that, in February, 1895, Father Leroy was sum¬ 
moned to Rome ad audiendum verbum (/.£., to hear a bit of the pope’s mind), 
and there forced to retract what he had said regardless whether he was thus 
induced to solemnly tell a lie (like Galileo) or no. The members of Curia 
have no “ bowels of compassion ” or consideration for conscience or truth, 
otherwise they would be content with submission without insisting on recan¬ 
tation, regardless of the real belief of the man forced to recant. As perse¬ 
cutors of old would force men to burn incense to the genius of the emperors, 
regardless of all ethical considerations, so these congregations disregard 
them likewise, abundantly content if they can force those subject to them to 
prostitute their souls at their dictation. % 

This fact as to Father Leroy was denied in the “Weekly Register” ; there¬ 
fore I had recourse to the most certain authority possible, and ascertained 


53 


44 We are not biologists, and cannot judge about such mat¬ 
ters, concerning which we may fall (as history shows us) into 

that the iniquity gloated over by the “ Civilta Cattolica ” actually took place. 

It was insisted on at Rome that he should publicly disavow his convictions 
under a threat that his work should otherwise be placed on the u Index.” 

He recanted, but only to find later that afterwards his work was put on the 
11 Index ” all the same. It was wrongly so put, however, since it attributed to 
him an opinion not his, and not to be found in his work. In his retractation 
he said : “I now learn that my thesis, after examination at Rome 1 by compe¬ 
tent authority,’ has been judged untenable, especially in what relates to the 
body of man, being incompatible with the text of Holy Scripture, as well as 
with the principles of sound philosophy. 

11 A docile child of the church ... I disavow, retract, and reprobate all 
that I have said, written, and published in favor of that theory.” 

u E pur se muove ” was not said by.Leroy any more than it was by Galileo, 
but it was doubtless thought, for I know that he keeps silence, in spite of 
trying attacks, and painful as he feels it to be, only on account of the orders 
which his superiors, in the interest of peace, impose on him. More than two 
years later .he wrote to a friend to say he regretted what had taken place less 
on his own account than on account of the interests of religion. Evolution, 
he said, may be attacked by scientific arguments, but that it should be pre¬ 
scribed in the names of theology and Scripture is inconceivable. 

As to poor Father Zahm, he also has been forced to "cave in,” and on the 
31st of last May he accordingly wrote to the translator of his work the follow¬ 
ing letter : 

Notre Dame, Indiana, U. S. A. 

My Dear Alfonso, —I have learned, from unquestionable authority, that the 
Holy See is adverse to the further distribution of " Evolution and Dogma,” 
and I therefore beg you to use all your influence to have the work withdrawn 
from sale. . . . Very sincerely yours, 

J. A. Zahm. 

To M. Alfonso M. Galea. 

To this is appended a declaration, in Italian, from the translator, as follows: 

I, likewise, in my turn, join the illustrious Dr. J. A. Zahm, as translator of 
his " Evolution and Dogma,” in begging my sincere friends neither to read 
nor to give ulterior publicity to my poor version of his above-named work, in 
homage and obedience to the desires of the Holy See, ever ready freely to 
acknowledge my error, should such be required of me. 

Alf. M. Galea. 

B6tharram Siena, May 31st, 1899. 

Thus ends (so far) this curious and modern repetition of the absurdity of 
the Galileo case. Father Zahm, like Archbishops Keen and Ireland, has had 


54 


great, painfully misleading, and very absurd errors. Of 
course, sucn theories contradict what we read in Scripture; but 
in our day so many things which we there read have been 
shown to be erroneous that we can no longer venture, at the 
most, to do more than put forward a tentative opinion for what 
it may be worth, and patiently await the progress of science 
to enable us to arrive at a trustworthy decision on such 
subjects. ” 

Such an answer would be at once modest and reasonable; 
the office of ecclesiastical authority is by no means to condemn 
views till their truth has been demonstrated,—surely a most 
immoral proceeding,—but to abstain from emitting any judg¬ 
ment meanwhile. It might, if it so pleased, put, as it were, 
the stamp of authority on what has once been so demonstrated, 
though this would be objectionable in so far as it might seem 
to imply that such ecclesiastical persons had some power or 
right to emit a judgment about such matters. 

It is surprising to find that another recent Catholic Apolo-' 
gist, Mr. W. S. Lilly, has committed himself 1 to the view 

to feel the effects of Roman Curialism. That they have been made so to feel it 
is most absurd, for, though Catholic Americans love justice and freedom in a 
way Curialists do not approve of, yet, as regards belief, they have the simple 
faith of children. Poor Father Hecker (who has been so traduced by the 
Abb6 Maignan) I knew well, both in England and also at Rome, where he 
had to undergo much vexation. He also had a faith which seemed, to me, in 
some respects, extravagant. I had a great regard for him, but I esteemed his 
noble and generous heart more than I did his intellect. Curious is the won¬ 
derful ignorance of Rome with regard both to England and America. Nor 
have the efforts of Cardinal Satolli done much to dissipate it. He is quoted 
by the ” Civile ” (p. 41, note 3) as an opponent of evolution in the name, not 
only of metaphysics, but of the natural sciences. If my information is cor¬ 
rect, the natural science to which Cardinal Satolli is most devoted is mineral¬ 
ogy, and especially metallurgy, he having acquired in the United States a very 
large collection of specimens in the form of dollars. 

1 See his “ Ancient Religion and Modern Thought,” p. 279. 


55 


that authority should go on teaching old traditional views till 
their falsehood is’ demonstrated, and then modify such tradi¬ 
tional views accordingly. This is the more surprising since 
the same pious Catholic layman—and secretary of the Catholic 
Union—has elsewhere expressed himself very differently on 
this subject. He has said: 1 

The greatest peril of the present day lies in this: that those 
who profess to be teachers of religion and defenders of the 
faith so seldom endeavor honestly to follow out the lines of 
thought familiar to earnest and cultivated men of the world. 

. . . Who can measure their responsibility, whose incredible 
traditions and discredited apologetics estrange men of intellect 
from Christianity? 

What, in my opinion, is the great peril which Catholicity 
now runs is occasioned by the deep and appalling disregard 
for, if not sometimes positive aversion to, scientific truth 
which is exhibited by Catholic advocates, and, high above 
all, by the Roman Curia, whereof some of the most recent 
manifestations would seem to imply that, if only power can 
thereby be retained, any amount of deception and of terrorism 
over weak, credulous minds and tenderly scrupulous con¬ 
sciences is abundantly justified. 

I will now pass to a brief consideration of certain positions 
recently taken up by yet another Catholic Apologist, a very 
distinguished priest, with respect to Scripture interpretation, 

—namely, the Rev. Robert Francis Clarke, D.D., F.L.S. In 
1894 he defended the papal encyclical about the Bible, Provi- 
dentissimus Deus , against the attack made on it by Canon Gore, 
and has since written, at intervals, on Scripture in the 
“ Tablet/’ up to and including last year. 

In these writings (for which he was made a doctor of 


See the 11 Forum,” Vol. ii., p. 327. 


56 


divinity by Rome) he declared that, apart from mistakes of 
transcription, mistranslation, and possible mistakes in docu¬ 
ments quoted, nothing could be justly termed “ an error ” 
which did not conflict with the divine purpose and intention in 
inspiring the writers of Scripture. 

For this distinction “ A Student,” in a letter to the 
“ Tablet,” 1 wrote to thank Dr. Clarke also for having 
“ clearly shown us how many statements found in Holy Scrip¬ 
ture may be untrue without being ‘ erroneous. ’ ” He then 
added: “ But I should be deeply grateful to him if he would 
answer one further question. I would ask how, amidst many 
statements not accordant with fact, we may arrive at certainty 
as to what are altogether trustworthy? ” “ It is plain that 

the ordinary teaching of the church does not suffice for this, 

. . . He is, however, probably aware of some satisfactory 
tests . . . which may enable us to discriminate between state¬ 
ments altogether true, and those grouped by him in various 
categories as not possessing that important characteristic.” 

To this Dr. Clarke replied: 2 

The expression “ A Student ” makes use of is most objec¬ 
tionable and misleading. All statements whatever . . . which 
are propounded ... by any canonical writer . . . are alto¬ 
gether true, if only they are taken in the way and sense in¬ 
tended by him. 

As to the criterion desiderated by ” A Student,” he says: 

The contextus, I reply, is the criterion. But what is con¬ 
cluded under this contextus? I again reply, everything 
relevant. 

And, as example of such relevant things, he includes : 

1 On December 25th, 1897. 

* In the “ Tablet ” for January 1st, 1898, 


57 


InvestigatiorToi the date, place, environment of the sacred 
author, of the style, ^manner, in a word, the literary methods, 
of the author himself, and (if it be relevant) of the context in 
the present English meaning of the word context. 

But Dr. Clarke’s just quoted assertion, that a man’s state¬ 
ments are true ‘ ‘ if only they are taken in the way and sense intended 
hy him,” would seem to me to involve very grave consequences. 

Surely, only those statements are “ true ” (as I have before 
pointed out) which correspond with ” objective fact ”—quite 
apart from harmony with the intention of him who makes 
them. Were this not so, a lie told by a thief with the inten¬ 
tion of deceiving a man he wanted to rob might, in such a 
sense, be termed “ a truth.” 

One or two examples will, I think, suffice to test the validity 
of Dr. Clarke’s position. 

As to the account of the Tower of Babel, whatever might 
have been the intention of the writer, whatever ancient docu¬ 
ments he may have copied, or however his contemporaries 
may have understood him, such considerations have nothing to 
do with the question: “ Did it or did it not agree with ob¬ 
jective fact? ” I should much like to know whether the Rev. 
Dr. Clarke himself believes that the diversities of tongues 
really arose as there represented. If he does, he differs from 
the overwhelming majority of competent philologists; the 
same question may be asked him as to the narrative of the 
Deluge. But if, for whatever reason, the term ” erroneous ” 
is not to be applied to such narratives, no honest man of 
education can venture to deny that they disaccord with ob¬ 
jective reality, and are therefore “ untrue.” Of course, it 
would be quite otherwise for any survivor of those who once 
held that every phrase in the Bible is as true as if it had 
been miraculously written by a divine act without the interven- 


58 


ti'on any human agent. But it is a very different matter if 
we are told, as Dr. Clarke tells us, that we cannot know' how 
many statements are mere copies from more ancient docu¬ 
ments, not written by inspired penmen, or fancy speeches 
like those found in Thucydides, etc. Surely, in that way, 
doubt and uncertainty are thrown over the whole Bible. 

It is to be regretted that the Rev. Dr. Clarke is not some¬ 
what clearer in his statements. He tells us that the “ con- 
textus is the criterion,” and that “ this contextus ” is “ what¬ 
ever is connected with, bears on, or is relevant to ” any Scrip, 
tural passage we may be considering. But which of us could 
even hope .to know all that is relative to any given text ? 

Dr. Clarke has been criticised in a very remarkable way in 
a letter to the “ Tablet,” signed “ J. Herbert Williams,” 
which says: 

Whatever sanctity, truth, and inspiration attaches to the 
writings of the New Testament attaches to them mediately, be¬ 
cause they are estimated to be on the same footing as the 
writings of the Old Testament. The Old Testament gives the 
norm, the model, of what an inspired writing is, and, when 
the New Testament writings are pronounced to be inspired, it 
is meant that they are like and equal to, the others. . . . 
Hence, when Dr. Robert F. Clarke (“ Tablet,” December 
11th) compares the speeches of the Old Testament, " a set 
Oratio, as that of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple, or 
a conversation and dialogue with its parts,” to the speeches 
of Thucydides, and asserts that the sacred writer “ filled in 
the parts by putting himself in the place of the speaker, and 
wrote in his person as a skilful secretary writes a letter,” and 
tells us that this account, so far from being inconsistent with 
the inspiration of the Old Testament, is the only explanation 
which avoids inconsistency and heretical depravation of doc¬ 
trine, may we presume that the same account applies to the 
“ speeches and dialogues ” of the New Testament? And, as 
the lawyers say, “ If not, why not? ” 


59 


Is, then, the “ Magnificat,” or the prayer of our Lord in 
John xvii., a similar literary composition to the prayer of 
Solomon above mentioned, and the discourse of Our Lord with 
the woman of Samaria, or that of the institution of the 
Eucharist, or any of the dialogues in the Gospels, similarly 
“ filled in”? There is, surely, the same “ absence of 
skilled shorthand writers ” on the occasion of the visit to St. 
Elizabeth or on Mount Olivet, and there is not more, but less, 
reason to presume the existence of documents which the writers 
can quote and recite. 

To all this Dr. Clarke makes but a very weak reply, 

“ hedging ” a little as to what he meant about Solomon 
(though Mr. Williams has quoted his very words), and con¬ 
tending that the “ Magnificat ” was translated into Greek with 
severe literalness, and remained untouched on the evidence of 
the frequent use of kai and the absence of de. 

He naturally admits that the different Evangelists vary 
slightly in their representation of events and discourses, and 
says: 

To suppose that readers looked for verbatim reports whe^ 
there were no shorthand writers is to suppose a manifest ab¬ 
surdity. The Evangelists and, above all, St. John give the 
gist in their own way, for which no shorthand writer was 
required. 

Finally, he contends that the inspiration was the same in 
the New Testament as in the Old, “ but the circumstances were 
almost entirely different.” 

The consequences, however, do not end here. What should 
we have to think, on Dr. Clarke’s principles, of the trust¬ 
worthiness of the conversation reported to have taken place 
between Our Lady and the Angel Gabriel? 

It seems to me that, with the best intentions, this Apologist 
has let loose a perfect flood of scepticism, not only over the 


60 


Old Testament, but over the New Testament also. Such ap¬ 
pear to be the inevitable consequences of abandoning a belief, 
once practically universal, in the miraculous inspiration and 
co-ordination of every word of the whole sacred text. Yet 
who, in the light of modern science, can possibly maintain 
that belief? 

But, grave as the results may be Of the position taken up by 
Dr. Clarke as regards Scripture, they seem to me infinitely 
less so than those which would ensue did he succeed in his 
attempted abolition of the recognized meaning of the words 
“ true ” and “ truth.” 

If truth does not mean conformity between thought and 
reality, then we can know nothing to be true, and float help¬ 
lessly and hopelessly in a shoreless ocean of uncertainty. In 
that ocean of doubt, not only all knowledge of history, but all 
kinds of scientific truths, theological included, are absolutely 
overwhelmed, and all logical support washed away from 
beneath the foundations of religion itself. 

I now come to the consideration of the last Catholic Apolo¬ 
gist it is my intention here to notice. I refer to the anony¬ 
mous author who, under the assumed'name, “ Romanus,” 
wrote, in the December number of the “ Contemporary Re¬ 
view ” for the year 1897, an article entitled “ Liberal 
Catholicism.” There are some persons who do not regard 
him as a Catholic Apologist at all. A very learned and justly 
esteemed Friar, the Most Reverend Father David, O.F.M.,— 
now an Inquisitor at Rome, and a Papal theologian,—has 
taken this view. In two lectures addressed to the Catholic 
Truth Society, he has vehemently attacked “ Romanus.” 

Now, Father David is the last person to be voluntarily unjust, 
for he is one of the most conscientious, as he is one of the 
most intellectual, of men. He can also be most considerate 



61 


and kind, as I well know, his kindness to me having been 
such that I feel I cannot be grateful enough to him for it. 

Yet it would not be very wonderful if he were sometimes un¬ 
consciously unjust. This is because he is possessed by an ex¬ 
treme fear of doing, or letting be done, any harm to the cause 
of religion—a fear which has sometimes restrained him from 
giving utterance to views which he nevertheless entertained. 
His zeal for the church is so great that I do not think he 
would allow any human feeling to interfere with the per¬ 
formance of the sternest part of what he might think his duty, 
as an official of the Holy Office. I can, then, well understand 
his opposition and hostility to “ Romanus,” but I venture to 
entertain a more charitable opinion concerning the latter. He 
certainly speaks with very high appreciation of Catholicity, 
and I see no reason to doubt his sincerity because he deals 
hard blows at various ecclesiastical authorities, and may be 
troubled with doubts as to certain doctrines. 

Father David has been a Catholic from his earliest child¬ 
hood, and has never known what it is to entertain a doubt 
about his religion. But 44 Romanus ” may be a convert—as 
Simpson, Capes, and so many other contributors to the 
“ Rambler,” etc., were. Now, a convert, unlike Father Da¬ 
vid, is a person who has been compelled to abandon a system 
of belief which he once held, owing to new facts that have 
come to his knowledge. Is it to be wondered at that such a 
man, when yet other novel facts may have become known to 
him, should sometimes say to himself: How does my creed 
appear now, with this new light upon it? As I have said 
long ago: 1 

Every man of science worthy of the name must not only re¬ 
fuse to give such assent, but must declare that he holds even 

1 See the “ Nineteenth Century,” for July, 1887, p. 35. 


62 


things he considers proved, only in such a way as to be ready 
to examine and weigh whatever seemingly important evidence 
may be freshly brought to light against them. 

Nevertheless, I should be extremely disinclined to champion 
various ideas put forward by “ Romanus,” some of which I 
regard as untenable at the present time. To begin, I strongly 
object to the very title of his article. In my eyes there is no 
need to adopt any party name,— e.g ., such as “ liberal. v 
The title “ Catholic ” is amply sufficient for any sincere 
advocate and defender of Catholicity. 

Such an Apologist, a defender of Catholicity, is a Theist 
par excellence , and therefore a necessary welcomer and upholder 
of all truth. I, therefore, cordially endorse the following 
words of “ Romanus ” : 

The God of truth can never be served by a lie, or the 
cause of religion promoted by clever dodges, studiously am¬ 
biguous utterances, hushing-up unpleasant truths, and mis¬ 
representing and minimizing their significance. 

Bearing in mind the case of Galileo and the renewed anti- 
scientific energy which characterizes the Roman Congrega¬ 
tions to-day, I most strongly deprecate the opposition of 
“ liberal Catholicism ” to Catholicism of any other kind, 
and would propose to denote the system specially hostile to 
science and truth by the term “ Curialism.” The term sug¬ 
gested itself to my mind during a recent long illness, when 
reading Pastor’s, Creighton’s, and Ranke’s “ Popes.” 

I then learned how great and how frequent has been the op¬ 
position of the Roman “ Curia,” not only to science, but also 
to morality and religion. I regard, then, “ Curialism” as 
being the great and persevering enemy of “ Catholicity.” 

Concerning the comic incident about the “ Index,” criti¬ 
cised'by “ Romanus,” it is a fact that the Holy See did dis- 


63 




pense us in England from the regulations of the new “ Index/’ 
and, in truth, the old “ Index” never did bind people in this 
country. 

As to remarks of ‘ ‘ Romanus ’ ’ about the ‘ ‘ three heavenly 
witnesses,” I consider them to be well warranted. Father 
David has no personal need whatever to defend Rome’s shock¬ 
ing decision on the question, since that decision was made be¬ 
fore Father Davi.d arrived in Rome. Had he got there in 
time, it is probable such a scandal would never have taken 
place. With respect to the papal encyclical (Providentissimus 
Deus) on the Bible, I think that “ Romanus ” rather under¬ 
states the objections to that shocking document. The distinc¬ 
tion drawn by the Rev. Dr. Robert F. Clarke as to what is 
erroneous we have already considered, and we may here add 
that it seems in opposition to the very encyclical itself, which 
affirms that those who, in order to rid themselves of difficul¬ 
ties, do not hesitate to propose a system according to which 
they affirm that, in considering “ the truth and falsehood of a 
passage, we. should consider not so much what God had said, 
as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it. 
This system cannot be tolerated.” Herein the encyclical, in 
spite of all its faults, is very reasonable. For what man in 
his senses would venture to affirm-that he knew the divine pur¬ 
poses sufficiently to make such knowledge a ready and service¬ 
able test in Biblical criticism? 

But, if this explanation of the existence of false statements 
in the Scriptures cannot be sustained, an answer to the ques¬ 
tion, “ What is an error? ” becomes only the more urgent. 
Bailey tells us that an “ error ” is a “ mistake, oversight, or 
false opinion,” and it appears to me to be unquestionable that 
any one who knowingly allows a false statement to be made in 
his name is a deceiver. 


64 


Now, if there are no “ errors ” (that word being taken in 
some unknown sense) in the Bible, there are in it, as every¬ 
body knows, a multitude of statements which are scientifically 
(including history as one branch of science) false. The Bible 
says the world was made in six days, but it was not so made. 

It tells us that Eve was formed from a rib of Adam, but, if 
such person ever existed, she never was so formed. 1 It gives 
two accounts of the Deluge, neither of which is true, etc., etc. 
It is needless to refer to other passages, because all educated 
Catholics know how numerous are the false statements the 
Bible contains. Who can accept as “ true ” such recitals as 
those about Moses’s wife and God’s manifestation to Moses 
(Exodus iv., 24—26; and xxxiii., 18—23)? Many state¬ 
ments like these just referred to have long deluded and misled 
the world, as they delude and mislead the uneducated now. 

It is plain that our higher ecclesiastical rulers were them¬ 
selves misled, and it seems pretty certain they are more or less 
misled still, to the great detriment of their authority, to the 
bewilderment of plain Christian men, and the undermining of 
religion. For it is most shocking that such errors should be 
taught to children and preached to adults as if they were 
truths. 

Of course, Leo XIII., if he spoke at all on the subject of 
Scriptural truth, could not have spoken much otherwise than 
he did, being bound hand and foot by the declarations of the 
Councils of the Vatican and of Trent. But why need such 
utterances have been put forth at all ? Why could not the 

1 As to this, Cardinal Cajetan, in his great commentary on Holy Scripture, 
teaches that the account of the creation of Eve is not historical, and does not 
hesitate to call a belief in it by no less strong term than absurd. His work is 
in the library of the British Museum, and will be found in its catalogue under 
the title “ Vio (Thomas de, Cardinal; Old Testament, Pentateuch Comment - 
arii,” ... in quinque Mosaicos libros ) 1539, Folio, Press Mark 100 8, e, 12 (1), 



65 


matter have been left to subside and die out, as that once uni¬ 
versally received doctrine, the speedy end of the world, has 
been allowed to subside and die out? Many pious souls are 
keenly alive to Scriptural difficulties, and painfully anxious 
as to what they are to think about the many false statements 
to be found in the inspired writings. Such “ little children” 
look to their spiritual “ fathers ” to be fed with the “ bread ” 
of wholesome doctrine to sustain their spiritual life, and they 
have doled out to them, instead, “ stones,” in the shape of 
hard words used in a sense which, if any one understands, no 
one explains rationally, or, I believe, can so explain— 
whether Dr. Robert F. Clarke or Father David, B.S.F.—in 
any reasonable sense. 

In spite of a certain aggressiveness of tone, a somewhat pro¬ 
voking way of writing, various faults of style, and sundry 
untenable exaggerations, I am certainly inclined to include 
“ Romanus ” as, on the whole, an effective Catholic Apologist. 
The language of every Apologist must be regulated by what 
he regards as the greatest needs of his own day, and what he 
anticipates as probable developments of doctrine in the near, 
or remote future. “ Romanus ” specially appeals to “ the 
church of ages yet to come,” and any one who so appeals may 
surely count on the disfavor of those whose yearnings are 
rather for the past. 

Every Apologist who proposes to advocate the cause of 
Catholicity is bound, above all things, to be frank and truth¬ 
ful. He must declare what he deems the truth, no matter 
what prejudices he ruffles, or what cherished and widespread 
delusions he may dispel. He is bound to try and give men 
higher and higher notions of the divine, and promote an un¬ 
hesitating trust in that noblest gift bestowed on man—the 
human intellect. Every educated man who would feel it a 


66 


great trial to be forced from his conformity with Catholicity 
may surely take comfort when he considers the progress which, 
thanks to science, has taken place, and be grateful to the men 
who, age after age, have striven to facilitate progress. It 
would doubtless amaze and appal men of narrow views if they 
could now see what that progress will one day be. In the 
words 1 of the Rev. Dr. Hogan, we should not “ look upon this 
evolution of Christian doctrine ... as having reached its 
term.” “ Many facts and views^commonly admitted at the 
present day may have to be given up at some later period,” 
while quite others may, centuries hence, assume the form of 
unquestioned truths. The changes as to religious belief which 
have already become popular amongst Catholics are. enormous, 
and much greater than these will surely occur in the near fu¬ 
ture. Altogether, so far it appears to me that our best motto 
with respect to conformity is: ” Rest and be thankful.” 

St. George Mivart. 


Op. cit., p. 114. 


67 


THE CONTINUITY OF CATHOLICISM. 1 

In a recent number of this review 2 I discussed, from 
a somewhat novel point of view, the much-debated question of 
“ Continuity,” in relation to that body of men and women de¬ 
noted by the abstract term “ the Anglican Church.” After 
noticing their main religious relations to each other and to 
their environment from about 1530 to 1600, I ventured to de¬ 
clare that, in my judgment, such sudden and considerable 
changes had simultaneously taken place in those relations, 
with respect to worship, doctrine, and ecclesiastical govern¬ 
ment, that a true breach of continuity had thereby been 
effected. 

Strange to say, a minor breach in the continuity of the An¬ 
glican body has actually been brought about by the very party 
which is so zealous in denying that any “ breach ” of con¬ 
tinuity has ever taken place. I-t has arisen thus: From the 
“ spacious ” days of Queen Elizabeth to the happy accession 
of Queen Victoria the Anglican community underwent many 
changes, but it had ever remained consistently and strongly 
national. Tractarianism, however, introduced an altogether 
new spirit,—one no longer “ national,” but ‘‘ Catholic,”-— 
and also initiated a movement tending to reverse the Reforma¬ 
tion settlement and restore the antecedent order of things. 

That movement was no sooner set going than it began to 
advance with irresistible vigor, and will (I believe) continue 
to advance, save in so far as it may be successfully com¬ 
bated by the efforts of those who are altogether hostile to 
Christianity. 

1 Originally printed in the " Nineteenth Century.” 

2 August, 1899. 


68 


It would be very rash to predict how the different schools of 
thought in England will stand to each other a hundred years 
hence. One thing, however, is happily certain : science will 
be advancing, and bringing with it a multitude of benefits to 
mankind. 

Still, though theological prediction is very difficult, the 
anti-Reformation movement has no logical issue—as it seems 
to me—save in submission to the pope, who will doubtless 
make large concessions to obtain it. Such an issue would 
probably bring with it some curious results. Should there 
ever come to be in England—amongst other possibilities—an 
“ old papal ” and a “ Neo-Catholic ” body, both in full com¬ 
munion with Rome, we may wonder what will be the relations 
between their respective heads—between a cardinal at West¬ 
minster with his quasi-Byzantine cathedral, Roman rite, and 
celibate clergy, and another at Canterbury with an amplified 
English mass and a body of canons for the most part married. 

My present object, however, is not to refer further to the 
Anglican communion, but to depict, as faithfully as I can, 
some circumstances relating to that of Rome. At the end of 
my former article 1 I said that some students might ask: 

“ How about the Roman Communion ? ” It is all very 
well to criticise Anglicans and their religious ideas and prac¬ 
tices, but is there any really true continuity amongst Roman 
Catholics ? 

I will now endeavor to answer this question. It is a noto¬ 
rious fact that many modifications as to worship and ecclesias¬ 
tical organization, and many developments of doctrine, have 
taken place, in the Roman church, between the end of the 
third and of the nineteenth centuries. It is, however, a fact 


Op. cit., p. 211. 


69 


equally notorious that no such sudden and considerable changes 
have simultaneously occurred within it as would constitute “ a 
breach of continuity.” 

I have not sufficient knowledge to warrant my making asser¬ 
tions with respect to the first three centuries. But that at the 
end of the third the Catholic community was already fully 
organized is a fact admitted by all our best historians. 

Taking for granted, then, that no breach of continuity has 
been occasioned by abrupt changes in ritual, dogma, and gov¬ 
ernment, there yet remains another important matter which 
has to be considered.* For there have been amongst Catholics 
very great modifications as to belief which have never been 
embodied in formal dogmatic decrees, and it is possible that 
some persons may consider that great changes of the kind do 
amount to a breach of continuity. 

Such modifications have sometimes been very little noted, 
and in my former paper I observed that they might be far too 
little appreciated. I said: 

While external matters attract general attention, little 
notice is taken of those wide and deep doctrinal developments 
which alone make conformity possible for men imbued with 
modern science, physical, critical, historical, and ethical. 

But such changes are taking place continually, and spreading 
in all directions amongst the educated, and this for the most 
part silently. 

It is accordingly needful that some of these most remarkable 
modifications of belief which have come to exist amongst 
earnest practical Catholics should be passed in review. It 
will then be for my readers to say whether or not I am mis¬ 
taken in upholding the “ Continuity of Catholicism.” 

It may, however, be premised that, just as every man with a 
healthy and active mind must change his views as his knowl- 


70 


edge increases, so every well-constituted community must like¬ 
wise modify its opinions. Of a community, as of a man, an 
animal or a plant, it may alike be said : “ To cease to change 
is to cease to live.” Of a man it may also be said that not 
to modify his convictions is to cease to live the highest kind of 
life,—that of the intellect,—while the life of one who learns 
more and more as his years increase should be a life of almost 
unceasing change. 

But the changes in belief to which I have here to refer are 
extremely different in character. Some are changes which 
have come.over the entire mass of Catholics, so that no one 
holds to-day what was once universally believed. Other 
changes are such as have taken place only amongst the edu¬ 
cated, though amongst such they have become general and 
widespread. Others, again, are modifications of belief which 
as yet have occurred but amongst comparatively few sincere 
and earnest Catholics; whilst some others are extremely ex¬ 
ceptional, yet should not remain unnoticed on account of the 
love for Catholicism felt by those who hold them. Most of 
these changes are matters of public notoriety and are widely 
known, however little noted and considered ; but others which 
have come to my knowledge are, so far as I am aware, known 
but to very few. 

All these changes are, however, to our purpose, because it is 
obviously my duty to bring forward all the most striking 
modifications I can, in order that the question may be tested 
in the most decisive manner. They are also to our purpose 
because the creed of the educated of to-day will become the 
belief of the many on the morrow. The same may also be 
said as to the opinions of those we may distinguish as the elite 
amongst the educated; whilst the fact that persons who are 
exceptionally learned and no less exceptionally devout have 


71 


undergone any noteworthy change of belief at least shows that 
such change is possible, and that it may spread further, and 
even one day become general. 

Of course no organized society which has adopted such 
principles and rules as those which regulate the Catholic body 
can revoke any solemn declarations it has once made, or 
reverse any of the laws it may have authoritatively laid 
down. 

Dogmas cannot be explicitly called in question, though 
sometimes they may be so explained (as we shall shortly see) 
that they thereby become (practically) explained away or 
even reversed. Sometimes, also, so changed a signification 
may be imparted to a word as to strangely modify the meaning 
of a doctrine wherein such word plays an important part. 

Before considering the modifications in belief I am about to 
enumerate, I desire, first, to state clearly that I am by no 
means to be supposed to myself adopt all the novel views to 
which I may call attention. 

Secondly, as I am no theologian, I cannot undertake the 
responsibility of defining what beliefs are, and what are not, 
de fide. To attempt to do that would, in the words of a 
learned divine, 1 only “ give rise to endless discussions.” It 
is enough for me that a belief has been generally entertained, 
in order that I should include it within the scope of this 
article ; for, as it seems to me, whatever has been so accepted, 
authority must have practically sanctioned, taught, or toler¬ 
ated, at some time or other. 

I need hardly add that I have no commission whatever from 
any authority to treat this subject, and, of course, have not 
the slightest claim to be regarded as a representative of any 

1 The Very Reverend Dr. Hogan. See his “ Clerical Studies” (Boston, 
Massachusetts, 1898), p. 121. 


72 


portion of the Catholic body. I write merely as one highly 
interested in all that concerns Catholicity, who has had cer¬ 
tain advantages and opportunities for observation, which those 
who are external to Catholicism cannot possess. 

I will begin my catalogue of changes in belief with a con¬ 
sideration of the most universal and complete transformation of 
the kind which has taken place since the origin of Christian¬ 
ity. I refer to the one which science has produced with re¬ 
spect to what may be termed the ‘ ‘ framework ’ ’ and ‘ ‘ set¬ 
ting ’ ’ of our mental picture of all that concerns religion and 
human life. 

When once effected, this transformation must have greatly 
facilitated all such subsequent changes of belief as science has 
tended to produce. I refer to that wonderful transformation in 
belief as to the nature and structure of the universe which has 
taken place since St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his “ Summa 
contra Gentiles.” 

For a millennium and a half, all Christians had regarded the 
earth as the centre of the universe and the object of God’s 
unique care. It was supposed to be surrounded by revolving 
crystal spheres bearing the sun, moon, and stars, while above 
them was heaven, with its angelic host; hell being within 
the earth, volcanoes so many of its gates, whence issued evil 
spirits to tempt and corrupt mankind, while angels readily 
descended from above, on errands of beneficence. It was also 
thought evident from revelation that all this fabric had been 
created in six days ; that God had specially created and 
clothed the earth with distinct species of animals and plants, 
formed, as were also the sun, moon, and stars, for the service 
of man, whose faults caused the world to be drowned in a 
deluge in the past, as in the future it will be destroyed by fire. 

To men who thus believed, it could not have been very diffi- 


73 


cult to accept the doctrine that, for the salvation of a race,— 
the only material objects of divine care and love,—God him¬ 
self had descended from His celestial to His terrestrial 
sphere, and taken to Himself the nature of that being who had 
already been created in His image. 

How great must have been the shock, to men brought up 
in this belief, to learn that their earth was but a floating 
speck of dust amidst a practical infinity of vast revolving 
spheres, many of which were possibly, if not probably, peopled 
by beings equal or superior in nature to man, and having, it 
might be, yet greater claims upon the good will of the Deity ! 
They could no longer behold the crystal floor of heaven, nor 
reasonably regard a volcano as a fountain of supernatural 
infernal fire. So vast a change of conception with respect to 
the cosmos could not fail to affect the domain of religious 
belief. 

I will now pass on to consider one or two special-doctrines 
with respect to which a complete change of belief has taken 
place. 

The first of these shall be the assertion / 4 Nulla salus extra 
ecclesiam ” (“ Out of the church there is no salvation”). 

This dictum was long generally accepted in its most literal 
meaning, and not a few persons so accept it still. We all 
recollect the history of the Teutonic chieftain who was about 
to be baptized, but paused to ask what had been the fate in the 
next world of his pagan ancestors. When told there could be 
no doubt but that they were all damned, he refused the regen¬ 
erating fluid, preferring to go where his ancestors had gone 
and abide with them. Now, however, it is admitted by the 
most rigid Roman theologians that men who do not even 
accept any form of Christianity, if only they are theists and 
lead good lives, may have an assured hope for the future, 
similar to that of a virtuous Christian believer. 


74 


This great change has been aided by the assertion that non- 
baptized persons, thus meritorious, belong not indeed to the 
“ body ” of the church, but to its “ soul.” Such an assertion 
is, however, a mere subterfuge. As we 1 pointed out in our 
former article, “ the church/ * qua church, is an ideal ab¬ 
straction. What an utter nonentity then must be “ the soul ” 
of this abstraction ! There has indeed been a complete 
change of belief as to this matter, though many persons are 
^~most unwilling to admit the fact. 

Another complete transformation is that which has taken 
place in the doctrine respecting the lawfulness of taking any 
interest for money. This was absolutely condemned by eccle¬ 
siastical authority under the name of “ usury ” at the Council 
of Vienna, presided over by Clement the Fifth. It was con¬ 
demned again and again; according to Concina, by twenty- 
eight councils (seven of them being regarded as general coun¬ 
cils) and by seventeen popes. The last formal decree of 
Rome on the subject is the celebrated encyclical of Benedict 
the Fourteenth. His definition is that usury is interest on a 
loan of money as a loan. The pope evidently regarded 
“ usury ” as intrinsically wrong—as a sin against justice and 
not merely against charity. The practice was so distinctly 
and emphatically condemned that no persons living in the 
middle ages could have had any apparently reasonable belief 
that such decisions would ever be explained away. Yet now, 
this has been done so completely that no pope, no Catholic 
priest or corporate ecclesiastical body, scruples to accept the 
best interest obtainable for any capital which may be at their 
disposal. 

Ingenious evasions, such as could never have been antici¬ 
pated, have been devised, and thus it has come about that 

1 u Nineteenth Century,” August, 1899, p. 204. 


75 


what was formerly declared by the highest ecclesiastical 
authority to be a great sin is now regarded as a perfectly 
innocent action, sometimes a meritorious one, and even, under 
certain circumstances, a course of conduct absolutely binding 
on conscience. 

With the two above important transformations of opinion, 
there has gone along yet another, though it has advanced with 
a somewhat halting gait. I mean the change from fierce intol¬ 
erance to benignant and sympathetic indulgence towards per¬ 
sons thought to be in religious error. 

With the old view as to the necessity to salvation of actu¬ 
ally being a member of the church’s body, intolerance was 
natural—such intolerance, e.g ., as that of St. Louis, who told 
De Joinville that, when a layman heard Christianity evil 
spoken of, he should defend it “ only with his sword, which he 
ought to run into the infidel’s belly as far as it will go.” 1 
The intolerance which existed in France down to the Revolution 
was great, and the Roman Inquisition, though now happily 
impotent to cause any physical suffering, maintains the same 
essential principles as those it acted on in the last century. 

V/e should soon be witnesses of notable intolerance, if the 
rabid Catholic party in Italy and France 2 could have their 
way. 

Respect for the honest opinions of others is a sentiment 
which has become deeply rooted in the English mind, and cer¬ 
tainly no less in that of our cousins across the Atlantic in the 
present day. It is an admirable kind of “ Americanism ”— 
an “ Americanism” eminently ” Catholic,” though pro- 

1 See 11 Saint Louis, King of France,” by the Sire de Joinville, translated 
by James Hutton (Sampson Low, Son & Marston, 1868), pp. 9, 10. 

2 I mean the party represented by the u Civile Cattolica,” the late Louis 
Veuillot, and the Canon Delassus and AbbS Maignen of the present day, and 
their allies—notably some pious anti-Dreyfusards, 


76 


foundly displeasing to “ Curialism.” It displayed itself 
most conspicuously in the holding of that ever-memorable 
Chicago “ Parliament of Religions. ” Striking indeed is the 
contrast between Cardinal Gibbons opening with prayer the 
proceedings of that peaceful and admirable assembly, and Tor- 
quemada presiding at an auto da fe . 

A few years ago I was talking with a friend—one of the 
most devout and earnest Catholics I know—about a certain 
priest who had then recently given pain to many by aban¬ 
doning Christianity. My friend said to me: 

How changed are the ideas of us Catholics from what they 
were centuries ago ! There is not one of us who would wish 
him to be burned. 

The remark was most true. Certainly no Catholic known 
to me would refuse to exert his utmost efforts to save that 
priest from so horrible a punishment. 

If such changes as this one, together with those about “ sal¬ 
vation,” “ usury,” and “witchcraft” (which latter I will no¬ 
tice later on), had taken place suddenly, it would almost suffice 
to prove that a breach of continuity had taken place amongst 
Catholics. In fact, however, they were all gradually brought 
about and without any authoritative action. 

There are other matters as to which many Catholics now 
entertain different views as to right and wrong from those 
entertained by their forefathers. 

One of these relates to the promotion of gambling by State 
lotteries, which were held with the pope’s sanction, while a 
cardinal would preside over the drawing of the lots. This 
form of gambling is now reprobated by many Catholics. 

Many Catholics also have come to recognize the ethical 
truth, which only seems to have been clearly apprehended of 
late—the truth, namely, that we are morally bound not to 


77 


inflict needless pain on animals, and still more bound not to 
cause pain for the mere pleasure of producing it. 

A third ethical intuition, which, so far as I know, has only- 
acquired distinct and widespread appreciation in modern 
times, is that of our moral responsibility not to prostitute the 
noble faculty of reason by giving assent to propositions which 
are not supported by adequate evidence. This is the trans¬ 
gression graphically though improperly stigmatized by Pro¬ 
fessor Huxley as “ the sin of faith,” but which should be 
termed “ the sin of credulity”—a grave fault, still far too 
common. 

Pious people have sometimes seemed as though they thought 
they could hardly believe too much, and felt that to be over- 
credulous was safer than to entertain an “ honest doubt.” 

Now, however, the duty of caution in credence is continually 
becoming more widely recognized, and we may hope that ere 
long it will be generally regarded as an imperative duty. 

Another most important change which is taking place 
amongst Catholics is the change which consists in regarding 
as specially to be valued, not that which is most ancient, but 
that which is most recent. This new belief may be shortly 
expressed by the maxim, “ Opinions which are newest are gen¬ 
erally truest.” The circumstance that any belief is a 
specially old one makes its truth at once an object of suspi¬ 
cion. It was Cardinal Newman who initiated and mainly pro¬ 
moted, in England, this change of view, through his great 
work on “ The Development of Christian Doctrine,” and his 
demonstration of the superiority of the Fathers who wrote 
after the Council of Nice compared with the Ante-Nicene 
writers. It is interesting to note.that an American ecclesi¬ 
astic is mo*st outspoken on this subject. The Very Reverend 
Dr. Hogan says : 1 


Op. cit.. p. 176. 


78 


The Fathers have come to be better understood in this age 
than in any other ; the closer and more critical study to which 
they have been subjected during the last two centuries has long 
since put an end to the indiscriminate trust given them in 
older times. They still remain the unhesitating, unques¬ 
tioned witnesses of the church’s faith in many particulars ; but 
in how many more do they simply give expression to their 
personal views, or follow the prevailing notions of their time, 
or work out conclusions from Scripture by canons of interpreta¬ 
tion which nobody thinks of following to-day ? 

It is so indeed ! What could be more absurd, with respect 
to any question of modern science, than to seek for enlighten¬ 
ment in works written ages before such questions were even 
thought of ? For example, what light can we expect to gain 
as to the problems of man’s origin; his relative nature; the 
thousands of years he has existed; his single or multiple 
origin; the production of new species of animals and plants; 
the authorship and date of the books of the Old and New Tes¬ 
taments ; the meaning of various obscure passages therein to 
be found; or the exact nature of the doctrines and organiza¬ 
tion of primitive Christianity; by addressing ourselves, not 
to learned experts who have severally made one or other of 
these questions their lifelong study, but to the teaching of 
ecclesiastics who may not really have studied them at all, 
but formed conclusions on a priori grounds; such as the words 
of Scripture, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, or the 
ordinary teaching of generations of ecclesiastics, who knew 
still less about the subjects concerning which they presume to 
express a judgment than themselves. Such conduct is prac¬ 
tically and in principle the blunder of Galileo’s condemnation 
over again. 

No ! Instead of proclaiming that to be true which has 
been believed “ semper , ubique, et ab omnibus ,” we may confi- 


79 


dently affirm that whatever has been so believed is most prob¬ 
ably false. 

I will now pass on to consider a change of belief that is 
very wonderful because its effects are so prodigiously different 
from those which they might have been expected to produce. 

It concerns a belief upon which the whole of Christianity was 
supposed, and is often declared, absolutely to rest. Neverthe¬ 
less it has vanished ; while the Catholic community, instead of 
being any the worse, seems to have gained vigor through a 
struggle wherein it has felt the vivifying touch of mother 
earth. 

I refer to the belief entertained by Catholics with respect 
to Scripture. The old view of the Bible regarded it as an 
entirely supernatural work, every word of which had been 
directly inspired by God Himself, and such is still the official 
belief enjoined on Catholics, It was early an obligation so 
to believe, but the Council of Trent imposed it on Catholics 
yet more distinctly, and that of the Vatican more distinctly 
still. Quite recently the pope, in his encyclical ( Providentissi - 
mus Deus), declared the books of the Old and New Testaments, 
with all their parts, to be sacred and canonical because, hav¬ 
ing been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have 
God for their author and therefore can contain no error. In 
so proclaiming, the pope only follows Roman tradition, for, 
as the Very Reverend Dr. Hogan says: 1 

Two hundred years ago the books of the Old and New Testa¬ 
ment were held in universal veneration. No doubt was enter¬ 
tained of their authenticity. Moses was the unquestioned 
author of the Pentateuch; Solomon, of Proverbs; Isaiah, Dan¬ 
iel, and the other prophets, of all that bore their names; the 
evangelists and apostles, of the writings of the New Testa- 


1 Op. at., p. 468. 


80 


ment respectively assigned to them. But their principal au¬ 
thor was the Holy Ghost, for they were all inspired, and in¬ 
spired in all their parts. This is what made them invaluable 
to Christians, their divine origin warranting their perfect in¬ 
errancy. If once we admit error in the Scriptures, said St. 
Jerome, “ what further authority can they possess? ” “ The 

whole structure of the faith totters,” added St. Augustine, 

“ once the authority of Scripture is shaken.” (“ De Doctrina 
Christiana,” cap. xxxviii.) 

Four hundred years ago the authority of Scripture was 
deemed absolute as regards all kinds of knowledge,—physical 
no less than religious,—and even in the last century any 
questioning of the literal sense of the first chapter of Genesis 
was resented as irreligious. Dom Calmet refers indignantly 
to those who were disposed to admit more than an interval of 
twenty-four hours between the great creative act and the pro¬ 
duction of light. The memorable condemnation of Galileo in 
the seventeenth century never will be, and never should be, 
forgotten. 

Now, in spite of an apparent official maintenance of such 
old views in the present day, they seem to be entirely aban¬ 
doned by almost all educated Catholics. The pope’s declara¬ 
tion that the Bible can “ contain no errors ” is but a matter 
of formal parade, only saved from falsehood by a more in¬ 
genious than honest distinction between “ errors ” and “ un¬ 
truths,” whereby theologians are able to declare that state¬ 
ments “ utterly untrue ” are entirely “ free from error.” 

Even a theologian at Rome, formally serving the pope as 
such, would not venture to deny that hundreds of statements 
which are not “ true ” are to be found in the Old and New 
Testaments. 

Thus, as I have said, educated Catholics no longer feel 
bound to regard the Bible in the old light. Comparatively 


81 


few persons now believe that the account in Genesis of the 
creation of the world, or of Adam and of Eve, is, in any 
sense, historical and true; or that the account of the Fall is 
such; or that diversities of language were due to God’s fear 
lest men should build a tower to reach heaven; or that Joshua, 
or Isaiah, in any way interfered with the regularity of the 
earth’s rotation on its axis. 

Lest any readers should think these statements rash or 
exaggerated, I will quote, in confirmation of what I have said, 
the words of an ecclesiastic, who is president of an important 
Catholic seminary. 

Dr. Hogan very candidly admits 1 that “ work has been done 
on the Bible in recent times with results which are no longer 
seriously questioned. Theologians have to acknowledge, how¬ 
ever reluctantly, that henceforth much less can be built on the 
Bible than has been done in the past.” Again he tells us : 2 

Each decade is marked by notable concessions, and it is 
remarkable that our Biblical students, while professing the 
most entire submission to the teachings of Leo the Thirteenth, 
have never been bolder in their speculation and in the handling 
of what had hitherto been looked upon in the Bible as literal 
history, than since the encyclical was issued. . . . The 
plagues of Egypt are cut down to the size of ordinary events 
. . . the miracle of Joshua to a poetic description of a natural 
phenomenon, etc. In a word, what assumes a historical form 
in the Bible is admitted in one case as a true record of facts; 
in another as a conventional or fanciful representation of what 
happened; in another, again, as a fiction . . . destined to em¬ 
body and convey some salutary truth. . . . The date and 
authorship of the books of the Old and New Testament they 
look upon as open to free discussion and bound to stand on 
their own merits. 


1 Op. cit., p. 481. 

* See pp. 476 and 477. 


82 




Wonderful indeed is the change which has come over the 
Catholic body as regards their belief about Scripture. It is 
of course still regarded as “ inspired,” but the meaning given 
to that term is rapidly changing. Who indeed that recognizes 
the immanence and universality of the divine activity can 
fail to regard that as the real author of all that is best and 
noblest in the thoughts, deeds, and words—spoken or written 
—of mankind? Can we venture to deny that Homer and 
Plato, ^Eschylus and Aristotle, Virgil and Tacitus, Dante and 
Shakespeare, were in various degrees inspired? As the Very 
Reverend Dr. Hogan says: 1 

The inspiration of Scripture is a dogma of faith; but it 
would seem as if we were further than ever from agreeing 
as to what is implied thereby. 

But it is not only the general change which has taken place 
as to the mode in which educated Catholics have come to re¬ 
gard Scripture generally that is noteworthy; what is yet more 
remarkable is the change which has occurred respecting the 
interpretation of certain passages formerly deemed prophetic. 
The result shows that St. Jerome and St. Augustine were mis¬ 
taken 2 in their anticipations as to the fatal effects which must 
follow any such change of view as to Scripture. 

I have no space to refer to more than one example—namely, 
that with respect to the meaning of the passage in Isaiah vii. 
14 - 16 : 

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, 
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his 
name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may 
know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the 
child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the 
land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. 

1 Op. at,, p. 167. 

9 See their words quoted above. 



83 


This used to be regarded as a prediction of the miraculous 
conception of Our Lord by a virgin, and it is actually re¬ 
ferred to as such by St. Matthew i. 20-22: 

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, etc. 

Yet there is probably no well-informed Catholic now who 
would deny that what Isaiah said was intended to calm the 
dread which Ahaz (king of Judah) felt with respect to Pekah 
(king of Israel) and Rezin (king of Syria) by assuring him 
that, before a young woman’s 1 newly-born child should be old' 
enough to know right from wrong, the two kings so dreaded 
should have disappeared. No one would now fail to see the 
absurdity of supposing that King Ahaz could be comforted by 
being told of an abnormal birth to take place five hundred 
years after his death. 

Not less important than the transformation which has taken 
place in the belief of Catholics about Holy Scripture is that 
which has occurred with respect to the right and power of ec¬ 
clesiastical authority to interpret it. 

Four hundred years ago that right was universally allowed, 
and conceded by the laity, and the accuracy of such official 
interpretations was unquestioned. But in the seventeenth 
century, thanks to the confessorship of that venerable servant 
of God, Galileo, the futility of such a claim was once for all 
demonstrated. 

The pope and the congregation of cardinals belonging to 
the Holy Office, when they condemned that illustrious astrono¬ 
mer and physicist, erred not only about physical science, but 
also about the meaning of Scripture, and they grounded their 

1 The word which has been translated 11 virgin ” really means “ a young 
woman,” and not necessarily a maiden. 


84 


first error on one much more important,—namely, on their 
pronouncement as to what the words of Holy Writ signified. 1 

After such an humiliating and disastrous failure, it became 
obviously impossible for ecclesiastical authority to claim with 
success a hearing as to any matter of science. “ Falsus in uno 
falsus in omnibus 9 ’ ! Catholics, to be logical, must say to any 
Roman congregation which should attempt to lay down the law 
about any branch of science: 

“You have blundered once, and we can never trust you 
again in any scientific matter; whether it be astronomy, 
biology, political economy, history, biblical criticism, or ec- 
clesiology. You may be right in your dicta, but also you 
may be wrong. The only authority in science is the authority 
of those who have studied the matter and are ‘ men who know. 5 
As to all that comes within the reach of inductive research, 
you must humbly accept the teaching of science, and nothing 
but science. And for this you should be grateful.” 

Yet, in spite of its absurdity, the Roman Curia has again 
ventured to show its now broken teeth, and stretch out its now 
blunted claws against worthy ecclesiastics, and that as re¬ 
gards a biological question,—namely, the origin of man! 

Poor Father Leroy, the Dominican, was summoned to 
Rome, and forced, willy-nilly, to recant and condemn what he 
had taught; and Father Zahm, the author of an edifying work, 
“ Evolution and Dogma,” has been induced, by a promise 
quickly broken, to recall it from circulation. The “ doctrine 
of evolution” was indeed very near being authoritatively con¬ 
demned by the Curialists, but, much as they wished, they did 
not dare to condemn it. 

One hardly knows whether to be more diverted by the impu- 

1 See my article " Modern Catholics and Scientific Freedom,” in the 
" Nineteenth Century” for July, 1885. 



85 


dent folly of such proceedings, or moved to indignation by 
their immorality. Happily the Curialists are, to quote the 
words of an Italian doctor of divinity who knows them well, 

as impotent as they are unscrupulous and corrupt.” 

That the change I describe has really taken place, and has 
become fully recognized by ecclesiastics themselves, is cer¬ 
tain. The Jesuit, Father Hill, teaches us that “ the criterion 
of scientific truth is not authority, but evidence.” The Very 
Reverend Dr. Hogan caps this remark 1 by the following one: 

It is now generally felt that a negative, not a positive, 
harmony has to be looked for, and that, instead of attempting 
to find the secrets of science in the Bible, the true meaning of 
the Bible, where it touches on the things of nature, should be 
sought for in science. 

From meditating on the changes which have taken place 
amongst Catholics, (1) with respect to the written Word, and 
(2) its authoritative interpretation, we may rise to consider 
some of the modifications which have been developed with 
respect to our conceptions as to the divine source of all knowl¬ 
edge. The great cause of all is not only utterly unimaginable 
by us, but entirely beyond our powers of comprehension and 
conception. Nevertheless, we may fearlessly affirm it 
possesses all that man possesses of perfection, and therefore 
such attributes as are feebly imaged forth—in a faint, though 
not false, analogy—by human intelligence, will, 2 etc. 

1 Op. cit., p. 133. The italics are mine. 

- This is all that is meant by the words “personality” and “personal,” as 
applied to Deity. Many men are strangely offended and repelled by those 
terms, because they entirely misapprehend the meaning and intention with 
which they are used. They fancy that, thereby, a sort of magnified humanity 
is attributed to God. But not to accept this conception of “ personality ” is to 
reduce our idea of the “ First Cause ” to that of a mere unintellectual energy, 
and therefore to degrade it to a kind of existence immeasurably below that of 
a human being. 


86 


A certain anthropomorphism is inseparable from our con¬ 
ception of the infinite being, because we cannot think thereof 
save by human ideas, based on imaginations of things and 
actions perceived by the senses. Hence that most true saying, 
“ As men are, so are their gods.” Therefore, as men be¬ 
come wiser, better, and nobler, their ideas of God ought to, 
and surely do, become more and more elevated. 

The Christian idea of the Deity was mainly derived from 
that of the Hebrews, which had itself greatly changed be¬ 
tween the conquest of Canaan and the Captivity. Yet the 
ideal greatness of the Jew and of the earlier Christians re¬ 
mained too much an idealized human greatness derived from 
conceptions of an omnipotent Caesarism, a benevolent despot¬ 
ism, the legalism of the judge and the supremacy of the pon¬ 
tiff. The conduct deemed by many to be most fitting towards 
such a being was abject self-abasement, piteous entreaties, 
praises, and endeavors to ward off chastisement for demerits, 
by self-torture and the presentation of the virtuous acts of 
others. God was thus conceived of as a non-natural oriental 
despot, exacting praise and adoration, and ready to chastise 
with the utmost severity any withholding thereof—a being 
capable of punishing disrespect and disobedience in the most 
terrible manner imaginable. For such acts of disrespect and 
disobedience were “ sins ’ ’; and grave sins were punished by 
damnation in hell-fire accompanied by other tortures, and 
lasting for ever and ever. Such ideas are not, perhaps, to be 
wondered at in ages when sufferings and hardships of all 
kinds abounded, when legal punishments were most barbarous, 
torture inflicted systematically, and burning alive regarded as 
a needful and salutary practice and viewed with complacency. 

In these days of softened manners and benevolent feelings, 
extending even to the brute creation, such beliefs have become 


87 


impossible for many Catholics, no less than for men of other 
creeds. The Deity is now regarded as a being to whom im¬ 
pieties are unwelcome, because prejudicial to the moral and 
intellectual welfare of those who commit or utter them. It is, 
of course, fully recognized that we may only too easily per¬ 
form actions prejudicial to our own welfare or that of others; 
but the old notion of “ sin ” as an offence against a sort of 
magnified, supernatural pope-king, who in divine anger smites 
the offender with an infinite punishment, is rapidly fading 
away. With the vanishing of such morbid notions about 
“ sin,” morbid notions about hell are rapidly vanishing also, 
and some writings of my own 1 have, I am thankful to say, 
helped to banish them from many Catholic minds. It is 
therefore needless for me to say more on the subject here. 

But the mention of “ sin ” in general naturally brings to 
mind the changes which have been effected in the notions of 
Catholics as to “ original sin.” 

No man of education now regards the Biblical account of 
“ the fall ” as more than “ a myth intended to symbolize some 
moral lapse of the earliest races of mankind,” or, possibly, 

“ the first awakening of the human conscience to a perception 
of right and wrong.” This is the utmost which such a man 
would admit, while most scholars would deny that there is 
more historical evidence for the garden of Eden than for the 
garden of the Hesperides. 

The consideration of this change of view also naturally 

1 My articles: (1) “ Happiness in Hell,” 11 Nineteenth Century,” Decem¬ 
ber, 1892 ; (2) “ The Happiness in Hell,” op . cit., February, 1893; and (3) 

" Last Words on the Happiness in Hell,” op. at., April, 1893. Quite lately 
a Catholic writer, with the letters H. J. H., has published a paper in the num¬ 
ber of the 11 American Ecclesiastical Review ” for 1897, wherein he maintains 
that unbaptized infants may attain the same bliss as that open to those who 
have been baptized. This is a most startling theological innovation. 


88 


brings to mind those which have taken place amongst Catholics 
as to the real meaning of “ redemption ” and the mode in 
which Christ’s death on the cross has affected mankind. 

It is very noteworthy that there should have been such 
variations with respect to what many persons consider the 
very essence of the Christian religion. 

A view once widely held as to the “ how ” men were so 
benefited may be termed “ redemption by cheating the devil.” 
According to this theory, Satan found himself, through the 
death of the God-man, overpaid, and so could make no further 
claim on man, who thus became freed from his dominion. 

Another theory, which has been much more widely prev¬ 
alent and is still held by many, may be called “ redemption 
by legal fiction.” This is the one propounded by St. Anselm 
in his treatise Cur Deus homo ?—“ Why God became Man.” 

According to it Christ suffered in the place of guilty man, 
and so God the Father was enabled, without renouncing what 
was due to His justice and majesty, to bestow His grace upon 
mankind. 

Very different is the view held by many modern Catholics 
as orthodox as learned. According to them, Christ’s life and 
death have served to set before us a great “ object lesson.” 
Such Catholics affirm that, beyond this, they know not, and 
that no one knows “ how ” man was benefited by the passion of 
Christ Jesus. All they know is that it has availed with God, 
as any other means would have availed, had God so willed it. 1 

1 I could refer to one of the most distinguished and highly placed of Roman 
theologians in support of this statement, had I permission to use his name. 

He told me that “ he saw no reason why the sacrifice of any animal, or the 
offering of any flower, might not have accomplished all that was accomplishe 
on Calvary, or why it might not have been accomplished without any physical 
act and by the divine will alone, save that in that case we should not have had 
the great ‘object lesson’ put before us.” 


89 


Various other modifications of view might here be men¬ 
tioned, but the above will suffice to show that, even as to this 
doctrine, great changes have taken place, and that it is pos¬ 
sible yet others may follow. 

But a change more startling than any yet referred to is that 
which seems now in progress with respect to the estimate in 
which Paganism is to be held in comparison with Christi¬ 
anity. The early Christians naturally detested it, and re¬ 
garded the heathen gods as so many devils who had been per¬ 
mitted to delude mankind. To the polytheism of Greece and 
Rome, Egypt and Syria, succeeded the strictest monotheism ; 
for at first prayers were not even addressed to Christ, but to 
the Father only. This monotheism was (as we have seen) of 
a very rigid type, leading to extreme self-denial, even as to 
the most innocent pleasures, to severe asceticism and a very 
exaggerated attribution of merit to virginity—apart from any 
special circumstances, and as a mere physical fact. 

The asceticism of early Christianity was indeed widely 
different from that which is venerated to-day, as has been 
clearly shown by that learned Benedictine monk of Cam¬ 
bridge, Dom Cuthbert Butler. In his study of “ Early Mo¬ 
nastic History ” 1 he tells us, concerning the spirit of Egyptian 
monachism (as reported in the “ Downside Review ”): 

The favorite name used to describe any of the prominent 
monks was “ great athlete.” And they were athletes, and 
filled with the spirit of the modern athlete. They loved to 
“ make a record ” in austerities, to contend with one another 
in mortifications; and they would freely boast of their spirit¬ 
ual achievements. ... In Palladius’s account of Macarius 
this stands out most conspicuously; if he ever heard of any one 

* See the tl Downside Review ” (vol. xvii., December, 1898, p. 268, etc.) 
on Dom Cuthbert Butler’s 11 Lausiac History of Palladius ” (Cambridge Uni¬ 
versity Press, 1898). 

( 


90 


having performed a work of asceticism, he was all on fire to 
do the same. . . . Did Macarius hear that another monk ate 
nothing but one pound of bread a day ? For three years he 
ate each day only what he could extract in a single handful 
through the narrow neck of a jar. Did he hear that the 
Tabennesiates ate nothing cooked by fire throughout one Lent? 
He did the same for seven years. He did not rest satisfied 
until he had gone to see, and beaten, them all. ... A 
strange system it was, often leading to extravagances, ec¬ 
centricities, and worse. Oriental hermits surpassed anything 
in Egypt. . . . Some of the Syrian monks were termed 
grazers, because they dwelt on the mountains and ate neither 
meal nor bread; but, when meal-time came, they took sickles 
and went forth to cut grass. ... St. Simeon Stylites, before 
ascending his pillar, had dwelt in an enclosure on a mountain, 
his right leg fastened to a large stone by an iron chain twenty 
cubits long. Theodoret relates that some of the hermits con¬ 
stantly carried on their shoulders heavy weights of iron, and 
that he had seen another who passed ten years in a tub sus¬ 
pended in mid-air from poles. ... St. Jerome solemnly de¬ 
clares that he knew a Syrian hermit who lived in an old cis¬ 
tern on five figs a day; St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of 
Syrian hermits who wore iron fetters, slept on the bare ground, 
and stood immovable in prayer in the rain, wind, and snow. 

Such savage and barbarous practices are no longer even' 
admired by- most Catholics, and the contrast is indeed great . 
between these devotees and the reasonable men who have re¬ 
placed them in modern times—for example, the Jesuits of 
Mount Street or the Fathers of the Brompton Oratory. It is 
not perhaps wonderful, then, that, having regard to such 
asceticism, to fierce intolerance, and to the many superstitions 
which tended to retard progress and impede human welfare, 
there have not been wanting Catholics to contend that, with the 
coming of Christianity, the pendulum swung (as it were) too' 
far in one direction, and that, the destruction of the evils of 


91 


Paganism having been accomplished, it should now be made 
to swing in the other direction, so that some of the merits 
Paganism possessed may be revived and restored. 

I have heard a man devoted to the cause of Catholicity ex¬ 
press himself as follows, when seeking the advice of a learned 
and austere priest: 

“ Monotheism,” in the highest sense of that term, is, of 
course, an indisputable truth, but can it be entirely defended 
as popularly understood? Newman has thrown 1 some doubts 
on this matter. He seems to doubt whether that infinite 
energy which pervades the universe—God—“ falls, or can be 
brought, under the idea of earthly number.” The idea 
“ number ” most certainly implies “ comparison,” “ distinct¬ 
ness,” and “ similarity,” and we cannot predicate “ unity” 
of God without the idea of “ number.” Can God be thus 
spoken of as being absolutely One? He has many attributes, 
some of which our reason reveals to us, while there may be 
many more which are altogether beyond our powers of concep¬ 
tion. There is no doubt a certain “ analogy ” between the 
“ attributes ” and “ modes of being ” of man and of God, but 
there is also an infinite and most mysterious difference. A 
man is not always actually “ loving ” or actually “ angry” ; 
he is for the most part but potentially one or the other. But 
with God nothing is potential; His every energy is an actual, 
eternal act of His essence. Thus it cannot be denied that the 
nature of God’s attributes, like the nature of God Himself, is 
incomprehensible to us. Moreover, God’s attributes, while 
distinct, are each of them equally “ God,” and therefore 
substantial. We can hardly then venture to affirm or deny 
that they are “ substantially distinct ” and “ distinctly sub¬ 
stantial.” At the least it seems that reason must admit that 
they may be much more so than is commonly supposed. But 
does not this really amount to polytheism? And indeed 
we may well ask why may we not, in this way, attribute 
“ plurality” to God? There are certainly some attributes 

1 In the last of his sermons preached before the University of Oxford. 


92 


and aspects of the Deity which may not be unfitly represented 
by such Pagan gods—by Zeus, Athene, Ares, Aphrodite, Nem¬ 
esis, Eros, Demeter, and Pan. In a sense the Paganism of 
Greece and Rome was “ true ” and “ righteous,’’ and the 
worship of the heathen, as Cardinal Newman has said, 1 2 3 
“ an acceptable service.” 

Amongst the attributes of God, revealed by reason, are 
some as to which the Christian revelation is silent; and the 
study of nature manifests to us divine activities which do not 
seem to harmonize with that idea of His being which is set 
before us by ecclesiastical authority.'• ! 

The student of biology finds the living world replete on 
every side with phenomena which, while they clothe the earth 
with beauty, minister, not merely to sexual reproduction, but 
often to mere pleasure. Certainly the devotee of biological 
science might well find himself moved by his studies to adore 
two divinities to which they specially point,—namely, Eros 
and Aphrodite. B 

There are, to my knowledge, good Catholics who feel drawn 
to worship God directly, but are repelled by the symbols often 
set before them^ such as by the figure of an old man clad in a 
cope and wearing a papal tiara, or some representations of the 
“ sacred heart,” or of that bird distinguished by no intellec¬ 
tual or moral ornithological pre-eminence—the dove. 

Amongst such devout persons are some who would prefer to 
worship God under one of His attributes symbolized by repre¬ 
sentations more resembling, Athene or Apollo, and who have 
specially felt the want in Christianity of a female symbol of 
divinity; for of course God is as much female 4 as He is male. 

1 In his “Discourses on University Education” (1852), p. 96. 

2 This is very notably the case with the teaching of St. Augustine and many 
others, as to what is known in moral theology as “ the debitum ’’—based, pos¬ 
sibly, on that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians vii. 9). 

3 It is hardly necessary to point out that the fact of pleasure of this kind 
being sown broadcast over nature in no way tends to excuse any relaxation in 
those ethical rules as to human conduct which are needful to maintain a sound 
social system. 

4 Harnack tells us that there were some in the earlier ages of Christianity 
who were inclined to regard the Holy Spirit of God as a female principle. 


93 


I have heard there are persons who go to the Brompton Oratory 
to there worship the Madonna, as the only available represen¬ 
tative of Venus; and we have lately read of the recent worship 
(in Paris) of Isis, by persons who regarded the goddess, 
whose veil no man has drawn aside, as no inapt symbol of the 
inscrutable power that everywhere meets, yet everywhere es¬ 
capes, our gaze as we seek to probe the mysteries of nature. 

In conclusion, I would ask whether it would be lawful for 
me, as a Catholic, to worship God as Zeus 1 or Athene, if I 
am in truth devoutly moved so to adore Him. 

The answer given, in my hearing, by the learned and devout 
priest in question was as follows: 

Most certainly it is lawful for you so to do, provided you 
find it helps you to advance in virtue and religion. But you 
must only do it privately; it would not at present be right for 
you to carry on a public worship of that kind. 

I myself subsequently asked the same question of three 
other learned and experienced priests, and received a similar 
reply from them all. 

Who would have anticipated in the thirteenth century that 
such a reply to such a question was a possible one? Truly a 
great change has come over the spirit of some Catholics! 

The next doctrine I wish to refer to is that of Our Lord’s 
resurrection. As everybody knows, each of the four evan¬ 
gelists gives a graphic account of the visit to the sepulchre, 
though only one of these can be accurate, seeing that no two 
of them agree. This and some other reasons have suggested 
to critics that the whole of these histories of the first Easter 
morning may be legendary only, and.the suspicion is strength 

See his " History of Dogma” (translated from.the third German edition), 
vol. iv., p. 109 (Williams & Norgate, 1898). 

1 To guard against an absurd misapprehension, I would point out that the 
questioner had no idea of worshipping the mythological characters Zeus, 
Athene, etc., but only attributes of the Supreme (majesty, wisdom, beauty, 
power, love, etc.) which these old Greek types embody. 


94 


ened by the fact that the earliest writings in the New Testa¬ 
ment—the Pauline epistles—are utterly silent with respect to 
them. It would certainly be very strange, if St. Paul did 
know of this visit to the empty tomb, that he should have 
failed to add so extremely valuable a testimony to the others 
he adduces in favor of the belief that the Lord had truly 
risen ! 

Impressed by these difficulties, I once asked a learned 
theologian (high in office and in great favor with the pope) 
whether, if it could be proved that Christ’s body had rotted in 
the grave, such a fact would be conclusive against the truth of 
the doctrine of the resurrection. “ Not in the least,” he re¬ 
plied; “ because we do not know in what the essence of a 
body consists.” Here we have an example of a change 
effected in belief through modifying the signification of a 
word—namely, the word “ body ”—the sort of change before 
referred to. 1 Such a theologian—a man as scrupulous as he is 
pious—would never have answered me as he did, had he not 
been sure that the change of view in question would be innoc¬ 
uous to religion. 

The fact, then, that Catholicity can thus stand entirely 
independent of what but a comparatively short time ago would 
have been universally regarded as an absolutely requisite 
belief seems to me a most remarkable fact as showing the 
indestructibility of Catholicism. 

This doctrine relating to the termination of Christ’s 
earthly career naturally brings to our mind what the New 
Testament tells us as to its commencement,—namely, his 
•miraculous conception and his birth from a virgin mother. 

The possibility that the Scriptural account of what concerns 
the former doctrine may be an unhistorical interpolation can 

1 S zt_ante } p. 53. 



95 


hardly fail to suggest (as it has suggested) the speculation 
whether St. Luke’s account of what concerns the second dogma 
may not be similarly explained. But could such a result be 
equally innocuous to Catholicity? Now critics have long 
doubted, or disbelieved, the early date commonly assigned to 
this part of the New Testament, and in the last volume of T. 

& T. Clark’s Dictionary it is quite admitted that the account 
in Luke belongs to a later structure of the synoptic narrative, 
and was not known to the first generation of Christians. 

That such an account should have been accepted as original, 
though really a later interpolation, would not be so very 
astonishing. Newly-discovered facts continue to make such a 
thing more and more likely. Thus we learn from a most 
Catholic source 2 that the orthodox world “ has received a 
fresh shock by the discovery, in Coptic, of the Apocryphal 
‘ Acts of Paul.’ The work, somewhat longer than the ‘ Acts 
of the Apostles,’ turns out to be of a most fabulous character 
(it probably included the story of the ‘ Baptized Lion,’ re¬ 
ferred to by St. Jerome); it was composed after the middle of 
the second century by ‘ a priest of Asia Minor,’ as Tertullian 
records; and yet it was accepted in the course of the next cen¬ 
tury as trustworthy in Carthage and Alexandria. ... It made 
its way into certain Syriac copies of the New Testament, and 
thence into the Armenian Canon, and it is even found in two 
Latin New Testament MSS. That a document of so late a 
date and of such a character should have had such a ‘ career 
of conquest,’ and should thus have made its way to the very 
threshold of the Canon, certainly raises important questions.” 
It does so indeed! 

As to the effect on Catholicity of a modified way of under¬ 
standing Our Lord’s conception (startling and inadmissible 

x The 11 Dublin Review” for January, 1899, p. 23. 


96 


by Catholics as such a view now is), there are, some people 
think, evidences that it might turn out to be as innocuous as 
that concerning the resurrection. And those good Catholics 
who have come to believe the Gospel account of the resurrec¬ 
tion to be legendary will be less indisposed than others to re¬ 
gard the account of His conception to be of a similar char¬ 
acter. Indeed, to my certain knowledge there actually are 
devout Catholics of both sexes, well known and highly 
esteemed,—weekly communicants and leading lives devoted 
to charity and religion,—who believe Joseph to have been the 
real and natural father of Jesus. They do not scruple, on 
that account, to apply to his mother all the expressions com¬ 
mon amongst Catholics; the term “ virgin ” 1 being used in 
the sense given to it by Isaiah, and not in the strict modern 
sense of that word. I know also priests vrho share this 
opinion, and I have heard a devout and ascetic religious affirm 
—not in my presence alone—that he thought the extraordinary 
dignity to which Rome has now raised St. Joseph may have 
been providentially brought about in preparation for a great 
change in popular sentiment and credence on this question. 

But this last modification of belief is as yet so rare 
amongst Catholics that its very existence is not generally sus¬ 
pected; but the fact that it really does exist amongst some 
who are earnest, learned, and devout is surely a very remark¬ 
able fact. The possibility of extreme changes in orthodox 
belief is also clearly shown with respect to two other doc¬ 
trines, with a notice of which this article will end. 

Both of these doctrines were once universally believed by 
Catholics. Yet they have completely passed away—one in 
early times, the other in the modern period. 

i Which is thus by them used in a much modified sense, as we have just 
seen may be done with the word “body.” 


97 


The first was the belief that the end of the w'orld would take 
place during the life of the first generation of Christians. No 
doctrine seems to have been more universally and strongly 
held, or to have had more effect on the lives of the early 
Christians—promoting their zeal and courage and shielding 
them from temptation. What value had the pleasures of life 
to men certain that in a few years nought would remain save 
the bliss of heaven for the elect, and the torments of hell for 
the reprobate? 

It was but natural that this doctrine should have been 
regarded by all as absolutely certain, since it had the very 
highest sanction, having been proclaimed, it was believed, by 
Our Lord Himself. 

This was indeed but natural, seeing that we read in St. 
Matthew xxiv. 34, that Jesus said, speaking of the end of 
the world: 

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till 
all these things be fulfilled. 

The passage in St. Mark xiii. 30 is identical; and also 
that in St. Luke xxi. 32, save that the words “ these things ” 
are omitted. 

Well might men ask: “ If we cannot be sure that Christ 
so spoke (seeing they are thus recorded by three evangelists), 
of what words attributed to Him can we be certain ? ” 

It has been suggested that the words may have been dis¬ 
placed, and that they should have been inserted in connection 
with those referring to the fall of Jerusalem. But the diffi¬ 
culty cannot be thus evaded, since the Lord is said to have 
elsewhere announced His speedy second advent. Thus in 
Matthew x. 23 we read: “ I say unto you, Ye shall not have 
gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come; ” 


98 


and (in xvi. 28): “ Verily I say unto you, There be some 
standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the 
Son of man coming in His kingdom.” 

In Mark ix. 1 we find the following very explicit passage: 

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there 
be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of 
death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with 
power. 

I leave to professed theologians the task of explaining these 
predictions, so entirely falsified by the event. My purpose 
in bringing them forward is only to show how a very early 
dogma (universally believed and naturally regarded as de fide 
—being so exceptionally grounded, as was thought, on direct 
revelation) vanished from amongst the articles of the Chris¬ 
tian faith and utterly disappeared. 

The last belief once general amongst Catholics (and other 
Christians) which I shall here notice is that concerning 
witchcraft and diabolical possession,—in one-word, concern¬ 
ing “ Demonology.” If the doctrine last considered could 
claim to be based on words in the New Testament, this one 
may claim to be based on the Old Testament also. Putting 
aside Saul and the Witch of Endor, we read in Exodus (xxii.^ 
18) the terrible words: “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to 
live.” When one thinks of the horrors, the cruelties, the 
frightful injustices, which have been perpetrated for centuries 
on poor women condemned as witches, it is difficult indeed to 
believe that the words above cited were written at the express 
dictation and, as it were, by “ the finger of God Himself.” 
But, if we regard it as an interpolation, the difficulty yet 
remains; for the delusion as to diabolical possession has also 
been fraught with frightful evils, and even recently caused a 
poor woman, in Ireland, to be put on the fire by her supersti- 


99 


tious relatives. Yet this superstitionwas sustained not by an 
isolated text or two in the Old Testament, but by all the Gos¬ 
pel narratives. They actually abound with asserted instances 
of such possession, and no one can read them without a con¬ 
viction that the evangelists thought that Our Lord believed 
that “ possession ” was a fact of common experience, and did 
not object to such a belief being entertained by His disciples. 
The explanation of this difficulty is a matter quite beyond 
my ability, and I leave its elucidation to skilled divines. 

My business is limited to calling attention to the wonderful 
transformation which has taken place amongst Catholics as 
well as others, as to this belief. Apart from the vulgar, a 
belief in witchcraft and possession has almost entirely died 
out. 

With the mention of this last transformation in belief, I 
bring to a close that catalogue of changes—the most startling 
and noteworthy I could find—which I proposed to myself to 
set before my readers, and which, I venture to think, will 
suffice to show that great modifications in general belief have 
indeed taken place amongst Catholics between the earliest 
days of Christianity and the close of the nineteenth century. 

To my mind it appears that these changes, though con¬ 
siderable, cannot be deemed to constitute a “ breach of con¬ 
tinuity,” since, though the majority of them have been 
effected in modern times, they have all taken place gradually, 
without authoritative official recognition, and certainly without 
any disruption of the Catholic body! Without interruption to 
its internal and external relations, and therefore without in¬ 
terruption to its continuous life. I submit, then, that the 
“ Continuity of Catholicity ” is a fact which cannot be suc¬ 
cessfully contested. 

Before concluding, I desire to set down a few words in reply 


L.of C. 



100 


to some readers who may wish to ask me why I have thus 
written, and why, feeling confident that the advance of 
science will bring about all needful changes, I have not 
awaited them in silence. To such inquiries I w r ould reply as 
follows: 

First, as I said in the concluding sentence of my former 
article, in the face of death I desire to do my duty in promot¬ 
ing what I regard as truth. Had I never written before, I 
would not write now. But, since I know that many persons 
have been influenced by former words of mine, I feel under a 
moral obligation to frankly make known my latest convictions. 

Secondly, I am convinced that the great changes herein re¬ 
ferred to are but preludes to far greater changes in the future 
—changes which will be most salutary, if duly foreseen and 
prepared for. They will take place surely sooner or later, as 
a new generation of mankind is sure anyhow to succeed the 
present one. But, just as the certainty of that fact does not 
make the function of the accoucheur less useful, so the sure 
advent of new conceptions and beliefs does not render useless 
the work of those who would prepare for and facilitate their 
safe delivery into the world of ideas. 

Thirdly, I write, because I am very strongly impressed with 
the various dangers 1 wherewith Catholicity is now threatened.; 
and, as it is to me evident that, as a moral agent, its power 
and influence are still enormous, I would do my best to serve it 
now, as I have done in the past. 

Fourthly, and lastly. I have written in the way I have 
written, because I am convinced that it is only by intellectual 
breadth; by the welcoming of truth on all sides and from all 

1 The Very Reverend Dr. Hogan says ( loc . cit. p. 98): “ There is no deny¬ 
ing it, we have entered a period of exceptionally deep and widespread unbe¬ 
lief. Christianity has ceased, in a great measure, to be the acknowledged ba¬ 
sis of society and the bond of civilized nations.” 


101 


quarters; by despising nothing that is good, even though it be 
pagan aspirations and ideals—too lightly thrust aside; by 
scrupulous honesty and candid appreciation of the true value 
of men and of arguments hostile to us, that solid good can be 
effected and Catholicity regain that universality of acceptance 
in the civilized world, and by men of light and leading, which 
it once enjoyed. 

Being thus profoundly impressed, I regard with the greatest 
aversion the spirit and tendency I have labelled “ Curial- 
ism,” 1 because I regard it as the one dangerous and deadly 
foe of Catholicity. 

The Curia 2 has learned nothing as to the real conditions of 
mankind beyond its own surroundings. Certainly it has 
learned nothing as to the nature and tendencies of that domi¬ 
nant factor in the world—our own race. Essentially despotic, 
it has still no glimmering of the truth that the English-speak¬ 
ing peoples have thrown off, once and for ever, despotism 
of whatsoever kind, and will never submit to the centralized 
tyranny which is the Curialist’s only notion of government. 

1 A typical example of its action is afforded by its recent movement against 
what has been termed “ Americanism.’’ 

2 In denouncing the Curia I make no reference to Leo the Thirteenth or to 
many exemplary cardinals. I refer to ecclesiastics of a lower grade, as to 
whom the Roman D. D. before referred to (resident at Rome) further writes 
to me thus: tl If any one thinks they care for religion, or anything but their 
own interest, or believes they possess one spark of evangelizing zeal, he must 
be a lunatic.” As to practical religion, let the pastoral care and house-to- 
house visitation carried on by the whole of the priests of St. John Lateran be 
compared with what takes place in the most crowded and least-well-served 
parish in London. 

But the subordination of all else to politics, even in high quarters, is made 
manifest by the recent benevolence of the Vatican to Russia, and its extraor¬ 
dinary hostility to England and our empire, throughout which the Catholic 
church enjoys such signal advantages and favors. The hope is that Russian 
absolutism may lead to the restoration of some fragments of the temporal 
power,— i.e., more power and money for the Curialists. 


lOi 



o 020 918 802 


A love for legal, constitutional rule is with us an inextinguish¬ 
able passion. It is this spirit, also, which is the true 
“ Americanism” across the Atlantic, where it dominates as 
it does in these islands which gave it birth. 

The struggle will doubtless be long between Catholicity 
(which desires all truth, justice, and rational liberty in reli¬ 
gion) and Curialism, but the defeat of the latter, however long 
delayed, is well assured. 

My aim has been to strengthen Catholicity, and to that end 
I have enumerated the most striking modifications in the be¬ 
lief of Catholics I could find, to show how many and great 
changes the Catholic body can undergo without injury to its 
vitality. I submit to the judgment of my readers the truth of 
the conclusion at which I have arrived,—namely, that these 
changes, no more than those which have occurred in Catholic 
ritual, doctrinal development, and government, have been fatal 
to the “ Continuity of Catholicism.” 


St. George Mivart. 


